Sickarsevillain is a war criminal and should be sent to The Hague

[Feck all sassanaigh]

Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?

[The Highlander]

On Aug 17, 4:42 pm, Feck all sassanaigh <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> the Merkans world dominian over energy.  What is wrong with bicycles?

Tinneas meabhrach a chóireáil:
Ma fhearann aon iompar de chuid comhalta go díreach ar dhuine de
phobal nó i gcás duine a bhfuil meabhairéislinn nó galar meabhrach
air.
Tá mé ar an dé deiridh agat. Tá mé ar tí an saol a fhágáil ag seo
uilig. Tá mé bodhar ag éisteacht leat.
Tá sé soiléir don saol mór, imigh do dochtúir!

[Feck all sassanaigh]

On Aug 18, 3:06 am, The Highlander <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 4:42 pm, Feck all sassanaigh <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> > South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> > the Merkans world dominian over energy.  What is wrong with bicycles?
>
> Tinneas meabhrach a chóireáil:
> Ma fhearann aon iompar de chuid comhalta go díreach ar dhuine de
> phobal nó i gcás duine a bhfuil meabhairéislinn nó galar meabhrach
> air.
> Tá mé ar an dé deiridh agat. Tá mé ar tí an saol a fhágáil ag seo
> uilig. Tá mé bodhar ag éisteacht leat.
> Tá sé soiléir don saol mór, imigh do dochtúir!

Tá sé soiléir don saol mór go bhfuil tú fhéin ar meisce ró fhada agus
go mba cheart duit stad a chuir leis an cac uafásach asat seolta anseo
beagnach gach lá. Bain úsáid as do mheabhair ó ám go h-ám.

[conwaycaine]

"Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?

Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis on
Stalingrad.
What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.

[freeireland]

conwaycaine wrote:

> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> > South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> > the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
>
> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
> destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis on
> Stalingrad.

So are you saying the Georgians did not fire Grad Rockets into a
civilian city?

You tell me how many died then?

The videos and pictures of Tskhinvali etc are widely avaiable for all
to see.


> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.

You clearly have no idea about Russian intentions. Clearly this is an
attempt by the US once again by proxy to dominate the region. Russia
has been able to negotiate agreements with most of those former USSR
republics and solve most border disputes even those with China. The
only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to gain
influence. Russia has withdrawn miltitary basis from places like Cuba
and Vietnam places of contention , these are hardly the actions of
imperialists. Even then any disputes they do have are along their own
borders. Then take a look at the US and the UK, they have troops
forcably not only trying to dominate their regions but those thousands
of miles away.

[conwaycaine]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:722793f4-15f8-4211-9f8f-***@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> conwaycaine wrote:
>
>> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> > Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
>> > South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
>> > the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
>>
>> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
>> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
>> destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis
>> on
>> Stalingrad.
>
> So are you saying the Georgians did not fire Grad Rockets into a
> civilian city?

Oh yes, they fired.
But the city was not leveled as the Ruskies claimed.

> You tell me how many died then?

I understand about 40 civilians,


> The videos and pictures of Tskhinvali etc are widely avaiable for all
> to see.

Filmed by the Ruskies?
Who, BTW, did their part in inflecting damage.
Again, the damage was nowhere near as severe as Stalingrad suffered (as the
Ruskies claimed).

>> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
>> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.
>
> You clearly have no idea about Russian intentions. Clearly this is an
> attempt by the US once again by proxy to dominate the region.

Two "Clearly"'s in a row?
You are Irish, for gawd's sake.
Write like it.

> Russia
> has been able to negotiate agreements with most of those former USSR
> republics and solve most border disputes even those with China. The
> only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to gain
> influence. Russia has withdrawn miltitary basis from places like Cuba
> and Vietnam places of contention , these are hardly the actions of
> imperialists. Even then any disputes they do have are along their own
> borders. Then take a look at the US and the UK, they have troops
> forcably not only trying to dominate their regions but those thousands
> of miles away.

What can I say?
The US has too many people of *nglish descent living here.
Those old traits die hard.

[Falcon]

"conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jygqk.13178$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:722793f4-15f8-4211-9f8f-***@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
[...]
>> The only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to
>> gain
>> influence. [...]
>
> What can I say?
> The US has too many people of *nglish descent living here.
> Those old traits die hard.

Leaving aside the totally uncalled for swipe at an innocent party, since
when did Georgia choosing to apply to join NATO amount to US imperialism? I
can understand Russia not liking it, but it's hardly our bloody fault.
Surely someone has the cart before the horse. Again.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
British Soldier killed in Afghanistan
http://xrl.us/onwod (Link to www.mod.uk)
------------------------------

[freeireland]

On 18 Aug, 16:42, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jygqk.13178$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> > "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:722793f4-15f8-4211-9f8f-***@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> >> The only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to
> >> gain
> >> influence. [...]
>
> > What can I say?
> > The US has too many people of *nglish descent living here.
> > Those old traits die hard.
>
> Leaving aside the totally uncalled for swipe at an innocent party, since
> when did Georgia choosing to apply to join NATO amount to US imperialism? I
> can understand Russia not liking it, but it's hardly our bloody fault.
> Surely someone has the cart before the horse. Again.
>

Nato is obviously driven by the US and Serbia, Kosovo is the best
example of how Nato is expanding its borders, the key objective for
imperialists. Threw military action and coercive diplomacy Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia was completely ripped apart,

Now Kosovo has been broken away from Serbia without proper procedure
as required in international law, U.S. corporations are already
positioning themselves to buy up all Kosovos rich reserves of brown
coal, lead, zinc and nickel. Each resource leading into billions of
tonnes. Of course the US gets it military base at Bondsteel.

The U.N. Charter forbids the forced breakup of nations, and U.N.
Security Council resolution 1244 guarantees the territorial integrity
of Serbia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Kosovo
independence “is fraught with serious damage for the whole system of
international law, negative consequences for the Balkans and the whole
world and for the stability in other regions.” This imperialist take
over has been ruthless with scant regard for the 50% of the population
who do not get enough food to eat. It has also led to a dangerous
precedent of ignoring legalities.

Kosovo is of strategic importance to Europe and the US and they have
shown the classic divide and conquer technique perfected by
imperialist Britain.

NATO is the military arm of international capital on five continents.
Popular opposition is rising in Serbia, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, the
Czech Republic, Poland, the Ukraine, Afghanistan and Africa.

However with Serbia as a result aligning itself with Russia selling
51% of state gas to Russia and the building of a new gas pipeline to
feed southern Europe through Serbia. The recent conflict in Georgia,
trade and military agreements between Russia and China show Asia is
well aware of Nato Imperialism expanding into eastern Europe and the
middle east.


> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> British Soldier killed in Afghanistanhttp://xrl.us/onwod(Link towww.mod.uk)
> ------------------------------

[d***@aol.com]

On Aug 18, 12:48 pm, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 Aug, 16:42, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:jygqk.13178$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> > > "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:722793f4-15f8-4211-9f8f-***@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > [...]
> > >> The only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to
> > >> gain
> > >> influence. [...]
>
> > > What can I say?
> > > The US has too many people of *nglish descent living here.
> > > Those old traits die hard.
>
> > Leaving aside the totally uncalled for swipe at an innocent party, since
> > when did Georgia choosing to apply to join NATO amount to US imperialism? I
> > can understand Russia not liking it, but it's hardly our bloody fault.
> > Surely someone has the cart before the horse. Again.
>
> Nato is obviously driven by the US and Serbia, Kosovo is the best
> example of how Nato is expanding its borders, the key objective for
> imperialists. Threw military action and coercive diplomacy Federal
> Republic of Yugoslavia was completely ripped apart,

Well, that's how the Serbian history books will tell it. I'm
sure the Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, etc have a different take.


>
> Now Kosovo has been broken away from Serbia without proper procedure
> as required in international law, U.S. corporations are already
> positioning themselves to buy up all Kosovos  rich reserves of brown
> coal, lead, zinc and nickel. Each resource leading into billions of
> tonnes. Of course the US gets it military base at Bondsteel.
>
> The U.N. Charter forbids the forced breakup of nations, and U.N.
> Security Council resolution 1244 guarantees the territorial integrity
> of Serbia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Kosovo
> independence “is fraught with serious damage for the whole system of
> international law, negative consequences for the Balkans and the whole
> world and for the stability in other regions.” This imperialist take
> over has been ruthless with scant regard for the 50% of the population
> who do not get enough food  to eat. It has also led to a dangerous
> precedent of ignoring legalities.


Wow, we agree on something. Kosovo will come back to bite
NATO and the EU on the butt.

>
> Kosovo is of strategic importance to Europe and the US and they have
> shown the classic divide and conquer technique perfected by
> imperialist Britain.

Kosovo isn't sh*t to the US.....if the Serbs would stick
to murdering non-white people, we wouldn't even know where it was.

>
> NATO is the military arm of international capital on five continents.
> Popular opposition is rising in Serbia, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, the
> Czech Republic, Poland, the Ukraine, Afghanistan and Africa.


Back away from the weed....really, it's frying your brain.


>
> However with Serbia as a result aligning itself with Russia selling
> 51% of state gas to Russia and the building of a new gas pipeline to
> feed southern Europe through Serbia. The recent conflict in Georgia,
> trade and military agreements between Russia and China show Asia  is
> well aware of Nato Imperialism expanding into eastern Europe and the
> middle east.


Has anyone asked the Eastern Europeans? I mean, are they
more afraid of NATO or Russia?

[freeireland]

On 18 Aug, 17:57, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 12:48 pm, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 18 Aug, 16:42, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > > "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:jygqk.13178$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> > > > "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:722793f4-15f8-4211-9f8f-***@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > > [...]
> > > >> The only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to
> > > >> gain
> > > >> influence. [...]
>
> > > > What can I say?
> > > > The US has too many people of *nglish descent living here.
> > > > Those old traits die hard.
>
> > > Leaving aside the totally uncalled for swipe at an innocent party, since
> > > when did Georgia choosing to apply to join NATO amount to US imperialism? I
> > > can understand Russia not liking it, but it's hardly our bloody fault.
> > > Surely someone has the cart before the horse. Again.
>
> > Nato is obviously driven by the US and Serbia, Kosovo is the best
> > example of how Nato is expanding its borders, the key objective for
> > imperialists. Threw military action and coercive diplomacy Federal
> > Republic of Yugoslavia was completely ripped apart,
>
>           Well, that's how the Serbian history books will tell it. I'm
> sure the Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, etc have a different take.
>
>

I am sure they would however the breakups came as a result of Nato
intervention.


>
>
>
> > Now Kosovo has been broken away from Serbia without proper procedure
> > as required in international law, U.S. corporations are already
> > positioning themselves to buy up all Kosovos  rich reserves of brown
> > coal, lead, zinc and nickel. Each resource leading into billions of
> > tonnes. Of course the US gets it military base at Bondsteel.
>
> > The U.N. Charter forbids the forced breakup of nations, and U.N.
> > Security Council resolution 1244 guarantees the territorial integrity
> > of Serbia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Kosovo
> > independence “is fraught with serious damage for the whole system of
> > international law, negative consequences for the Balkans and the whole
> > world and for the stability in other regions.” This imperialist take
> > over has been ruthless with scant regard for the 50% of the population
> > who do not get enough food  to eat. It has also led to a dangerous
> > precedent of ignoring legalities.
>
>          Wow, we agree on something. Kosovo will come back to bite
> NATO and the EU on the butt.
>
>
>
> > Kosovo is of strategic importance to Europe and the US and they have
> > shown the classic divide and conquer technique perfected by
> > imperialist Britain.
>
>              Kosovo isn't sh*t to the US.....if the Serbs would stick
> to murdering non-white people, we wouldn't even know where it was.
>

So why did they not intervene in regions with much worse ethnic
problems such as Rwanda the Sudan.

Kosovo independance was backed illegally purely for the sell off
Kosovos massive hoard of natural resources.

>
>
> > NATO is the military arm of international capital on five continents.
> > Popular opposition is rising in Serbia, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, the
> > Czech Republic, Poland, the Ukraine, Afghanistan and Africa.
>
>             Back away from the weed....really, it's frying your brain.

Really don't you think so, Nato and the wider west resentment is
growing consistanly not only in most regions of the world but in
Europe itself.


>
>
>
> > However with Serbia as a result aligning itself with Russia selling
> > 51% of state gas to Russia and the building of a new gas pipeline to
> > feed southern Europe through Serbia. The recent conflict in Georgia,
> > trade and military agreements between Russia and China show Asia  is
> > well aware of Nato Imperialism expanding into eastern Europe and the
> > middle east.
>
>             Has anyone asked the Eastern Europeans? I mean, are they
> more afraid of NATO or Russia?

Eastern European countries are divided on Nato. Take Ukraine. After
next years general election they will more than likely have a pro
Russian president. The Orange revolution coalition has broken up.

[d***@aol.com]

>
> >           Well, that's how the Serbian history books will tell it. I'm
> > sure the Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, etc have a different take.
>
> I am sure they would however the breakups came as a result of Nato
> intervention.


The breakups were coming anyway.....in case you haven't
noticed, those people pretty much hate each other.

>
> >              Kosovo isn't sh*t to the US.....if the Serbs would stick
> > to murdering non-white people, we wouldn't even know where it was.
>
>  So why did they not intervene in regions with much worse ethnic
> problems such as Rwanda the Sudan.


What part of "if the Serbs would stick to murdering non-white
people" did you not understand?

>
> >             Back away from the weed....really, it's frying your brain.
>
> Really don't you think so, Nato and the wider west resentment is
> growing consistanly not only in most regions of the world but in
> Europe itself.


Please.

>
>
>
>
> >             Has anyone asked the Eastern Europeans? I mean, are they
> > more afraid of NATO or Russia?
>
> Eastern European countries are divided on Nato. Take Ukraine. After
> next years general election they will more than likely have a pro
> Russian president. The Orange revolution coalition has broken up.


That doesn't answer my question. Are the Poles more
concerned with Russia or NATO? How about the Balts? How about the
Romanians?

[freeireland]

On 18 Aug, 21:27, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> > >           Well, that's how the Serbian history books will tell it. I'm
> > > sure the Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, etc have a different take.
>
> > I am sure they would however the breakups came as a result of Nato
> > intervention.
>
>         The breakups were coming anyway.....in case you haven't
> noticed, those people pretty much hate each other.

So do the people in Georgia yet Nato are claiming this does not matter
in face of national sovereignty. This is the problem Nato have it only
supports breakups that suits their expansionist agenda. What gives
Nato the right to to determine borders in nations outside their
alliance in violation of international law?


>
>
>
> > >              Kosovo isn't sh*t to the US.....if the Serbs would stick
> > > to murdering non-white people, we wouldn't even know where it was.
>
> >  So why did they not intervene in regions with much worse ethnic
> > problems such as Rwanda the Sudan.
>
>          What part of "if the Serbs would stick to murdering non-white
> people" did you not understand?

So your claiming Nato is racist. This is nonsense of course. Natos
expansion is strategic in regards to both natural resources and
miltary. The bidding over Kosovos natural resources and the expansion
of Nato military basis into eastern europe are examples of this.


>
>
>
> > >             Back away from the weed....really, it's frying your brain.
>
> > Really don't you think so, Nato and the wider west resentment is
> > growing consistanly not only in most regions of the world but in
> > Europe itself.
>
>                  Please.
>

There have been anti Nato rallies all around Europe


>
>
> > >             Has anyone asked the Eastern Europeans? I mean, are they
> > > more afraid of NATO or Russia?
>
> > Eastern European countries are divided on Nato. Take Ukraine. After
> > next years general election they will more than likely have a pro
> > Russian president. The Orange revolution coalition has broken up.
>
>                  That doesn't answer my question. Are the Poles more
> concerned with Russia or NATO? How about the Balts? How about the
> Romanians?

Yes it does "Eastern European countries are divided on Nato"

Take Ukraine as another example, only 75 of the countries 450 seats
support the president in joining Nato. The problem some eastern
european governments want stratigic separation from Russia by joining
Nato however they still want Russian susidised gas/oil and Russian
pensions. The Ukranian elections next year are gearing up for a pro/
anti Nato election which has effectively split the orange revolution
parties.

[d***@aol.com]

>
> >         The breakups were coming anyway.....in case you haven't
> > noticed, those people pretty much hate each other.
>
> So do the people in Georgia yet Nato are claiming this does not matter
> in face of national sovereignty. This is the problem Nato have it only
> supports breakups that suits their expansionist agenda. What gives
> Nato the right to to determine borders in nations outside their
> alliance in violation of international law?


Gee, NATO only supports breakups that they agree with?
Go figure.

>
>
> >          What part of "if the Serbs would stick to murdering non-white
> > people" did you not understand?
>
> So your claiming Nato is racist. This is nonsense of course. Natos
> expansion is strategic in regards to both natural resources and
> miltary. The bidding over Kosovos natural resources and the expansion
> of Nato military basis into eastern europe are examples of this.


No, I'm claiming the US doesn't care as much about
murdered non-whites.

>
> There have been anti Nato rallies all around Europe


Wow, pretty much any kook with an agenda can hold a
rally....PETA comes to mind.

> >                  That doesn't answer my question. Are the Poles more
> > concerned with Russia or NATO? How about the Balts? How about the
> > Romanians?
>
> Yes it does "Eastern European countries are divided on Nato"

There's a difference between being "divided on NATO" and
not being more concerned with Russia.

>
> Take Ukraine as another example, only 75 of the countries 450 seats
> support the president in joining Nato. The problem some eastern
> european governments want stratigic separation from Russia by joining
> Nato however they still want Russian susidised gas/oil and Russian
> pensions.  The Ukranian elections next year are gearing up for a pro/
> anti Nato election which has effectively split the orange revolution
> parties.

So, which is it? They're either more concerned that NATO
will come in and take over or that Russia will. My question was quite
simple, yet you change the parameters.

[freeireland]

On 19 Aug, 11:50, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> > >         The breakups were coming anyway.....in case you haven't
> > > noticed, those people pretty much hate each other.
>
> > So do the people in Georgia yet Nato are claiming this does not matter
> > in face of national sovereignty. This is the problem Nato have it only
> > supports breakups that suits their expansionist agenda. What gives
> > Nato the right to to determine borders in nations outside their
> > alliance in violation of international law?
>
>                Gee, NATO only supports breakups that they agree with?
> Go figure.
>

You mean suits there imperialist agenda.


>
>
> > >          What part of "if the Serbs would stick to murdering non-white
> > > people" did you not understand?
>
> > So your claiming Nato is racist. This is nonsense of course. Natos
> > expansion is strategic in regards to both natural resources and
> > miltary. The bidding over Kosovos natural resources and the expansion
> > of Nato military basis into eastern europe are examples of this.
>
>              No, I'm claiming the US doesn't care as much about
> murdered non-whites.
>

Again I am saying they do not care about murdered whites or any ethnic
group unless they can expand. This makes them imperialists.


>
>
> > There have been anti Nato rallies all around Europe
>
>                Wow, pretty much any kook with an agenda can hold a
> rally....PETA comes to mind.
>
> > >                  That doesn't answer my question. Are the Poles more
> > > concerned with Russia or NATO? How about the Balts? How about the
> > > Romanians?
>
> > Yes it does "Eastern European countries are divided on Nato"
>
>               There's a difference between being "divided on NATO" and
> not being more concerned with Russia.
>
>
>
> > Take Ukraine as another example, only 75 of the countries 450 seats
> > support the president in joining Nato. The problem some eastern
> > european governments want stratigic separation from Russia by joining
> > Nato however they still want Russian susidised gas/oil and Russian
> > pensions.  The Ukranian elections next year are gearing up for a pro/
> > anti Nato election which has effectively split the orange revolution
> > parties.
>
>             So, which is it? They're either more concerned that NATO
> will come in and take over or that Russia will. My question was quite
> simple, yet you change the parameters.

No my answer was quite clear, many of them are divided on both joining
Nato and further separation or fear from Russia. Again for example
Ukraine even now the parties who started the orange revolution are
divided on the matter. In December 2007 a opinion poll put former
president Viktor Yanukovych in first position with 24.4% and Yulia
Tymoshenko (current Prime minister) with 19.8%. Current pro Nato
president getting Viktor Yushchenko getting 12.7%. Yulia Tymoshenko in
polls in 2008 has since overtaken Yanukovych however the pro Nato
Yushchenko still lies way behind in 3rd place.

Yanukovych effectively gets votes from Ukrainian Russians with polices
such as making Russian the second official language of the Ukraine.
etc. Tymoshenko an oil woman made her money in the energy markets. She
is very pro doing deals and negotiating with Russia on such matters.
Realising Nato membership means no more subsidised Russian oil with
two new pipelines one through Germany and the other through Serbia
could cut the Ukraine out of any oil/gas deals into Europe. It looks
like Tymoshenko is already making deals with Moscow for Ukrainian/
Russian support in next years elections. Infact The Georgian/Ossetian
conflist has split the Ukrainian coalition government down the middle
with Tymoshenko now calling for a minimum of a referendum on Nato
membership.

A poll by the Sofia Social research centre found the 52% of Ukrainians
polled in the summer of 2007 mistrusted the current pro Nato
president.

The reality is modern Russia has settled most of its border disputes
through diplomacy with most of its past USSR states and bordering
nations. The most controversial is that with China which was agreed
between both nations in 2005. In-fact the only nations Russia has
friction with is those in eastern Europe where Nato is involved. The
number of former USSR states who claim to be under any threat from
Russia are certainly in the minority. Then even some of those are in
dispute internally in regards to the matter as I have shown with the
Ukraine. Of course states like Belarus and Slovakia are very pro
Russian and fear Nato yet for some reason we never hear them mentioned
on the BBC.

You tell me what former USSR or border states fear Russia?

[d***@aol.com]

On Aug 19, 9:55 am, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Aug, 11:50, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >         The breakups were coming anyway.....in case you haven't
> > > > noticed, those people pretty much hate each other.
>
> > > So do the people in Georgia yet Nato are claiming this does not matter
> > > in face of national sovereignty. This is the problem Nato have it only
> > > supports breakups that suits their expansionist agenda. What gives
> > > Nato the right to to determine borders in nations outside their
> > > alliance in violation of international law?
>
> >                Gee, NATO only supports breakups that they agree with?
> > Go figure.
>
> You mean suits there imperialist agenda.


Call it what you will....that doesn't make it so.

>
>
>
> > > >          What part of "if the Serbs would stick to murdering non-white
> > > > people" did you not understand?
>
> > > So your claiming Nato is racist. This is nonsense of course. Natos
> > > expansion is strategic in regards to both natural resources and
> > > miltary. The bidding over Kosovos natural resources and the expansion
> > > of Nato military basis into eastern europe are examples of this.
>
> >              No, I'm claiming the US doesn't care as much about
> > murdered non-whites.
>
> Again I am saying they do not care about murdered whites or any ethnic
> group unless they can expand. This makes them imperialists.



You can say what you want, but the US had no economic stake
in Bosnia or Kosovo. Stories and pictures of Serb atrocities is why
the uS got involved.


>
>
> No my answer was quite clear, many of them are divided on both joining
> Nato and further separation or fear from Russia.  Again for example
> Ukraine even now the parties who started the orange revolution are
> divided on the matter. In December 2007 a opinion poll put former
> president Viktor Yanukovych in first position with 24.4%  and Yulia
> Tymoshenko (current Prime minister) with 19.8%. Current pro Nato
> president getting Viktor Yushchenko getting 12.7%. Yulia Tymoshenko in
> polls in 2008 has since overtaken Yanukovych however the pro Nato
> Yushchenko still lies way behind in 3rd place.
>
> Yanukovych effectively gets votes from Ukrainian Russians with polices
> such as making Russian the second official language of the Ukraine.
> etc. Tymoshenko an oil woman made her money in the energy markets. She
> is very pro doing deals and negotiating with Russia on such matters.
> Realising Nato membership means no more subsidised Russian oil with
> two new pipelines one through Germany and the other through Serbia
> could cut the Ukraine out of any oil/gas deals into Europe. It looks
> like Tymoshenko is already making deals with Moscow for Ukrainian/
> Russian support in next years elections. Infact The Georgian/Ossetian
> conflist has split the Ukrainian coalition government down the middle
> with Tymoshenko now calling for a minimum of a referendum on Nato
> membership.
>
> A poll by the Sofia Social research centre found the 52% of Ukrainians
> polled in the summer of 2007 mistrusted the current pro Nato
> president.


That's not really surprising. How were the questions
worded? Also, was the president mistrusted for being pro-NATO, or for
other reasons?

>
> The reality is modern Russia has settled most of its border disputes
> through diplomacy with most of its past USSR states and bordering
> nations. The most controversial is that with China which was agreed
> between both nations in 2005. In-fact the only nations Russia has
> friction with is those in eastern Europe where Nato is involved. The
> number of former USSR states who claim to be under any threat from
> Russia are certainly in the minority. Then even some of those are in
> dispute internally in regards to the matter as I have shown with the
> Ukraine. Of course states like Belarus and Slovakia are very pro
> Russian and fear Nato yet for some reason we never hear them mentioned
> on the BBC.


Wow, the US media does a better job than the BBC? Go figure.
I wonder how many Ukrainians in these polls are ethnic Russians?


>
> You tell me what former USSR or border states fear Russia?

Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Georgia,
Armenia.......

[freeireland]

On 19 Aug, 15:32, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 9:55 am, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 19 Aug, 11:50, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >         The breakups were coming anyway.....in case you haven't
> > > > > noticed, those people pretty much hate each other.
>
> > > > So do the people in Georgia yet Nato are claiming this does not matter
> > > > in face of national sovereignty. This is the problem Nato have it only
> > > > supports breakups that suits their expansionist agenda. What gives
> > > > Nato the right to to determine borders in nations outside their
> > > > alliance in violation of international law?
>
> > >                Gee, NATO only supports breakups that they agree with?
> > > Go figure.
>
> > You mean suits there imperialist agenda.
>
>              Call it what you will....that doesn't make it so.
>

No sure instead why not go and blame it on some racist agenda.


>
>
>
>
> > > > >          What part of "if the Serbs would stick to murdering non-white
> > > > > people" did you not understand?
>
> > > > So your claiming Nato is racist. This is nonsense of course. Natos
> > > > expansion is strategic in regards to both natural resources and
> > > > miltary. The bidding over Kosovos natural resources and the expansion
> > > > of Nato military basis into eastern europe are examples of this.
>
> > >              No, I'm claiming the US doesn't care as much about
> > > murdered non-whites.
>
> > Again I am saying they do not care about murdered whites or any ethnic
> > group unless they can expand. This makes them imperialists.
>
>          You can say what you want, but the US had no economic stake
> in Bosnia or Kosovo. Stories and pictures of Serb atrocities is why
> the uS got involved.
>

So what about the atrocities committed against the Serbs?

Again NATO not only has a stake in the vast amount of resources in
Kosovo, including billionsof tonnes of brown coal and metals (large
sections of which have been auctioned of to US companies), but it
also has a military interest. I already mentioned the US base already
in Kosovo as we speak.


>
>
>
>
> > No my answer was quite clear, many of them are divided on both joining
> > Nato and further separation or fear from Russia.  Again for example
> > Ukraine even now the parties who started the orange revolution are
> > divided on the matter. In December 2007 a opinion poll put former
> > president Viktor Yanukovych in first position with 24.4%  and Yulia
> > Tymoshenko (current Prime minister) with 19.8%. Current pro Nato
> > president getting Viktor Yushchenko getting 12.7%. Yulia Tymoshenko in
> > polls in 2008 has since overtaken Yanukovych however the pro Nato
> > Yushchenko still lies way behind in 3rd place.
>
> > Yanukovych effectively gets votes from Ukrainian Russians with polices
> > such as making Russian the second official language of the Ukraine.
> > etc. Tymoshenko an oil woman made her money in the energy markets. She
> > is very pro doing deals and negotiating with Russia on such matters.
> > Realising Nato membership means no more subsidised Russian oil with
> > two new pipelines one through Germany and the other through Serbia
> > could cut the Ukraine out of any oil/gas deals into Europe. It looks
> > like Tymoshenko is already making deals with Moscow for Ukrainian/
> > Russian support in next years elections. Infact The Georgian/Ossetian
> > conflist has split the Ukrainian coalition government down the middle
> > with Tymoshenko now calling for a minimum of a referendum on Nato
> > membership.
>
> > A poll by the Sofia Social research centre found the 52% of Ukrainians
> > polled in the summer of 2007 mistrusted the current pro Nato
> > president.
>
>            That's not really surprising. How were the questions
> worded? Also, was the president mistrusted for being pro-NATO, or for
> other reasons?
>

Well clearly people are backing pro russian parties and candidates in
all recent polls.


>
>
> > The reality is modern Russia has settled most of its border disputes
> > through diplomacy with most of its past USSR states and bordering
> > nations. The most controversial is that with China which was agreed
> > between both nations in 2005. In-fact the only nations Russia has
> > friction with is those in eastern Europe where Nato is involved. The
> > number of former USSR states who claim to be under any threat from
> > Russia are certainly in the minority. Then even some of those are in
> > dispute internally in regards to the matter as I have shown with the
> > Ukraine. Of course states like Belarus and Slovakia are very pro
> > Russian and fear Nato yet for some reason we never hear them mentioned
> > on the BBC.
>
>           Wow, the US media does a better job than the BBC? Go figure.
> I wonder how many Ukrainians in these polls are ethnic Russians?
>

Many Ukranians hold Russian passports however they have to have lived
in the Ukraine for at least 10 years and be fluent Ukranian speakers
according to the Ukranian constitution.

>
>
> > You tell me what former USSR or border states fear Russia?
>
>        Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Georgia,
> Armenia.......

Armenia is pro russian. Its two largest parties have close ties with
Moscow. Why do you think the piple through Georgia avoids it.

What about Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, Belarus, Slovakia, Serbia etc

Then list the former US states which have ties with NATO?

[d***@aol.com]

On Aug 19, 1:01 pm, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Aug, 15:32, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 9:55 am, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 19 Aug, 11:50, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >         The breakups were coming anyway.....in case you haven't
> > > > > > noticed, those people pretty much hate each other.
>
> > > > > So do the people in Georgia yet Nato are claiming this does not matter
> > > > > in face of national sovereignty. This is the problem Nato have it only
> > > > > supports breakups that suits their expansionist agenda. What gives
> > > > > Nato the right to to determine borders in nations outside their
> > > > > alliance in violation of international law?
>
> > > >                Gee, NATO only supports breakups that they agree with?
> > > > Go figure.
>
> > > You mean suits there imperialist agenda.
>
> >              Call it what you will....that doesn't make it so.
>
> No sure instead why not go and blame it on some racist agenda.


It's not an agenda of any kind. And there's nothing to
blame...it was the right thing to do. The racist part is NOT helping
others in the same situation.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > >          What part of "if the Serbs would stick to murdering non-white
> > > > > > people" did you not understand?
>
> > > > > So your claiming Nato is racist. This is nonsense of course. Natos
> > > > > expansion is strategic in regards to both natural resources and
> > > > > miltary. The bidding over Kosovos natural resources and the expansion
> > > > > of Nato military basis into eastern europe are examples of this.
>
> > > >              No, I'm claiming the US doesn't care as much about
> > > > murdered non-whites.
>
> > > Again I am saying they do not care about murdered whites or any ethnic
> > > group unless they can expand. This makes them imperialists.
>
> >          You can say what you want, but the US had no economic stake
> > in Bosnia or Kosovo. Stories and pictures of Serb atrocities is why
> > the uS got involved.
>
> So what about the atrocities committed against the Serbs?


What about them? At the time, the Serbs had the guns and
the agenda.


>
> Again NATO not only has a stake in the vast amount of resources in
> Kosovo, including billionsof tonnes of brown coal and metals (large
> sections of which have been auctioned of to US companies),  but it
> also has a military interest. I already mentioned the US base already
> in Kosovo as we speak.


You keep saying this like NATO is some super uber
government.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > No my answer was quite clear, many of them are divided on both joining
> > > Nato and further separation or fear from Russia.  Again for example
> > > Ukraine even now the parties who started the orange revolution are
> > > divided on the matter. In December 2007 a opinion poll put former
> > > president Viktor Yanukovych in first position with 24.4%  and Yulia
> > > Tymoshenko (current Prime minister) with 19.8%. Current pro Nato
> > > president getting Viktor Yushchenko getting 12.7%. Yulia Tymoshenko in
> > > polls in 2008 has since overtaken Yanukovych however the pro Nato
> > > Yushchenko still lies way behind in 3rd place.
>
> > > Yanukovych effectively gets votes from Ukrainian Russians with polices
> > > such as making Russian the second official language of the Ukraine.
> > > etc. Tymoshenko an oil woman made her money in the energy markets. She
> > > is very pro doing deals and negotiating with Russia on such matters.
> > > Realising Nato membership means no more subsidised Russian oil with
> > > two new pipelines one through Germany and the other through Serbia
> > > could cut the Ukraine out of any oil/gas deals into Europe. It looks
> > > like Tymoshenko is already making deals with Moscow for Ukrainian/
> > > Russian support in next years elections. Infact The Georgian/Ossetian
> > > conflist has split the Ukrainian coalition government down the middle
> > > with Tymoshenko now calling for a minimum of a referendum on Nato
> > > membership.
>
> > > A poll by the Sofia Social research centre found the 52% of Ukrainians
> > > polled in the summer of 2007 mistrusted the current pro Nato
> > > president.
>
> >            That's not really surprising. How were the questions
> > worded? Also, was the president mistrusted for being pro-NATO, or for
> > other reasons?
>
> Well clearly people are backing pro russian parties and candidates in
> all recent polls.


Which doesn't answer the questions.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The reality is modern Russia has settled most of its border disputes
> > > through diplomacy with most of its past USSR states and bordering
> > > nations. The most controversial is that with China which was agreed
> > > between both nations in 2005. In-fact the only nations Russia has
> > > friction with is those in eastern Europe where Nato is involved. The
> > > number of former USSR states who claim to be under any threat from
> > > Russia are certainly in the minority. Then even some of those are in
> > > dispute internally in regards to the matter as I have shown with the
> > > Ukraine. Of course states like Belarus and Slovakia are very pro
> > > Russian and fear Nato yet for some reason we never hear them mentioned
> > > on the BBC.
>
> >           Wow, the US media does a better job than the BBC? Go figure.
> > I wonder how many Ukrainians in these polls are ethnic Russians?
>
> Many  Ukranians hold Russian passports however they have to have lived
> in the Ukraine for at least 10 years and be fluent Ukranian speakers
> according to the Ukranian constitution.


But do they identify themselves as Russians or
Ukrainians?

>
>
>
> > > You tell me what former USSR or border states fear Russia?
>
> >        Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Georgia,
> > Armenia.......
>
> Armenia is pro russian. Its two largest parties have close ties with
> Moscow. Why do you think the piple through Georgia avoids it.
>
> What about Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
> Uzbekistan, Belarus, Slovakia, Serbia etc

What about them?

>
> Then list the former US states which have ties with NATO?


Since the US has no former states, this seems like a pretty
silly question.

[freeireland]

On 19 Aug, 18:15, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 1:01 pm, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 Aug, 15:32, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 19, 9:55 am, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 19 Aug, 11:50, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >         The breakups were coming anyway.....in case you haven't
> > > > > > > noticed, those people pretty much hate each other.
>
> > > > > > So do the people in Georgia yet Nato are claiming this does not matter
> > > > > > in face of national sovereignty. This is the problem Nato have it only
> > > > > > supports breakups that suits their expansionist agenda. What gives
> > > > > > Nato the right to to determine borders in nations outside their
> > > > > > alliance in violation of international law?
>
> > > > >                Gee, NATO only supports breakups that they agree with?
> > > > > Go figure.
>
> > > > You mean suits there imperialist agenda.
>
> > >              Call it what you will....that doesn't make it so.
>
> > No sure instead why not go and blame it on some racist agenda.
>
>             It's not an agenda of any kind. And there's nothing to
> blame...it was the right thing to do. The racist part is NOT helping
> others in the same situation.
>
>


"The racist part is NOT helping others in the same situation."
helping only whites against genocide is a racist agenda. However I
disagree with this for in example in Georgia NATO did not even hold an
emergency session when Georgia attacked Ossetian civilians in South
Ossetia. In this instance and even now they are largely


>
>
>
> > > > > > >          What part of "if the Serbs would stick to murdering non-white
> > > > > > > people" did you not understand?
>
> > > > > > So your claiming Nato is racist. This is nonsense of course. Natos
> > > > > > expansion is strategic in regards to both natural resources and
> > > > > > miltary. The bidding over Kosovos natural resources and the expansion
> > > > > > of Nato military basis into eastern europe are examples of this.
>
> > > > >              No, I'm claiming the US doesn't care as much about
> > > > > murdered non-whites.
>
> > > > Again I am saying they do not care about murdered whites or any ethnic
> > > > group unless they can expand. This makes them imperialists.
>
> > >          You can say what you want, but the US had no economic stake
> > > in Bosnia or Kosovo. Stories and pictures of Serb atrocities is why
> > > the uS got involved.
>
> > So what about the atrocities committed against the Serbs?
>
>               What about them? At the time, the Serbs had the guns and
> the agenda.

Everyone had guns and everyone had agendas!

>
>
>
> > Again NATO not only has a stake in the vast amount of resources in
> > Kosovo, including billionsof tonnes of brown coal and metals (large
> > sections of which have been auctioned of to US companies),  but it
> > also has a military interest. I already mentioned the US base already
> > in Kosovo as we speak.
>
>                 You keep saying this like NATO is some super uber
> government.
>
>

The cold war is over and the organisation has no other reason to
exist.

>
>
>
> > > > No my answer was quite clear, many of them are divided on both joining
> > > > Nato and further separation or fear from Russia.  Again for example
> > > > Ukraine even now the parties who started the orange revolution are
> > > > divided on the matter. In December 2007 a opinion poll put former
> > > > president Viktor Yanukovych in first position with 24.4%  and Yulia
> > > > Tymoshenko (current Prime minister) with 19.8%. Current pro Nato
> > > > president getting Viktor Yushchenko getting 12.7%. Yulia Tymoshenko in
> > > > polls in 2008 has since overtaken Yanukovych however the pro Nato
> > > > Yushchenko still lies way behind in 3rd place.
>
> > > > Yanukovych effectively gets votes from Ukrainian Russians with polices
> > > > such as making Russian the second official language of the Ukraine.
> > > > etc. Tymoshenko an oil woman made her money in the energy markets. She
> > > > is very pro doing deals and negotiating with Russia on such matters.
> > > > Realising Nato membership means no more subsidised Russian oil with
> > > > two new pipelines one through Germany and the other through Serbia
> > > > could cut the Ukraine out of any oil/gas deals into Europe. It looks
> > > > like Tymoshenko is already making deals with Moscow for Ukrainian/
> > > > Russian support in next years elections. Infact The Georgian/Ossetian
> > > > conflist has split the Ukrainian coalition government down the middle
> > > > with Tymoshenko now calling for a minimum of a referendum on Nato
> > > > membership.
>
> > > > A poll by the Sofia Social research centre found the 52% of Ukrainians
> > > > polled in the summer of 2007 mistrusted the current pro Nato
> > > > president.
>
> > >            That's not really surprising. How were the questions
> > > worded? Also, was the president mistrusted for being pro-NATO, or for
> > > other reasons?
>
> > Well clearly people are backing pro russian parties and candidates in
> > all recent polls.
>
>                Which doesn't answer the questions.
>
>

Yes it does and the Ukraine as a prime example. It is not as simple
as saying countries fear Russia or are pro NATO because by large most
are divided on the matter. As for fearing Russia I doubt any fear them
in military terms but certainly maybe in energy and funding terms they
fear both Russia and NATO.

For example again Ukraine joining NATO would likely mean no more
subsidised gas or oil. No more state pensions paid by Russia and a
huge drop in the countries income as the Russian gas pipeline would
cease pumping. Ukraine's fears in Serbia/Kosovo have been realised.
NATO recognising Kosovo as independent has opened an alternative route
through Serbia and strong Serbian ties with Moscow that gives Russia a
similar priced option to supply southern Europe. Ukraine are in a very
difficult position economically and the difficult decisions it has to
make already dividing the orange coalition will be used to fight the
next general election in December 2010.

Personally I think both NATO and Russia are exploiting this
economically challenged little country.

>
>
>
> > > > The reality is modern Russia has settled most of its border disputes
> > > > through diplomacy with most of its past USSR states and bordering
> > > > nations. The most controversial is that with China which was agreed
> > > > between both nations in 2005. In-fact the only nations Russia has
> > > > friction with is those in eastern Europe where Nato is involved. The
> > > > number of former USSR states who claim to be under any threat from
> > > > Russia are certainly in the minority. Then even some of those are in
> > > > dispute internally in regards to the matter as I have shown with the
> > > > Ukraine. Of course states like Belarus and Slovakia are very pro
> > > > Russian and fear Nato yet for some reason we never hear them mentioned
> > > > on the BBC.
>
> > >           Wow, the US media does a better job than the BBC? Go figure.
> > > I wonder how many Ukrainians in these polls are ethnic Russians?
>
> > Many  Ukranians hold Russian passports however they have to have lived
> > in the Ukraine for at least 10 years and be fluent Ukranian speakers
> > according to the Ukranian constitution.
>
>              But do they identify themselves as Russians or
> Ukrainians?
>

I think as both. I know one Russian/Ukrainian who is obviously very
pro Russian. He certainly sees himself as both and has both passports.
The Russian and Ukrainian governments both allow this arrangement.


>
>
> > > > You tell me what former USSR or border states fear Russia?
>
> > >        Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Georgia,
> > > Armenia.......
>
> > Armenia is pro russian. Its two largest parties have close ties with
> > Moscow. Why do you think the piple through Georgia avoids it.
>
> > What about Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
> > Uzbekistan, Belarus, Slovakia, Serbia etc
>
>            What about them?
>

Well they are all ex-USSR states who are on good terms with Russia.
Why do they not feel they have anything to fear from Russia?

>
>
> > Then list the former US states which have ties with NATO?
>
>            Since the US has no former states, this seems like a pretty
> silly question.

Sorry USSR states, I think you knew what I intended.

[d***@aol.com]

>
> "The racist part is NOT helping others in the same situation."
> helping only whites  against genocide is a racist agenda. However I
> disagree with this for in example in Georgia NATO did not even hold an
> emergency session when Georgia attacked Ossetian civilians in South
> Ossetia.  In this instance and even now they are largely


The example I was giving was why the US got involved in
the former Yugoslavia, but not Darfur or Rwanda. The US is not NATO.
Also, firing some missiles into a city is not genocide...it may well
be a war crime, but it's not genocide.


>
> >               What about them? At the time, the Serbs had the guns and
> > the agenda.
>
> Everyone had guns and everyone had agendas!


The Serbs had the vast majority of the guns.

>
> The cold war is over and the organisation has no other reason to
> exist.


Your opinion? NATO was formed to protect against Soviet
aggression, but I'm pretty sure its charter says nothing about "We'll
disband if the Soviets fold like a rotten chicken coop".


> Yes it does and the Ukraine as a prime example.  It is not as simple
> as saying countries fear Russia or are pro NATO because by large most
> are divided on the matter. As for fearing Russia I doubt any fear them
> in military terms but certainly maybe in energy and funding terms they
> fear both Russia and NATO.
>
> For example again Ukraine joining NATO would likely mean no more
> subsidised gas or oil.  No more state pensions paid by Russia and a
> huge drop in the countries income as the Russian gas pipeline would
> cease pumping. Ukraine's fears in Serbia/Kosovo have been realised.
> NATO recognising Kosovo as independent has opened an alternative route
> through Serbia and strong Serbian ties with Moscow that gives Russia a
> similar priced option to supply southern Europe. Ukraine are in a very
> difficult position economically and the difficult decisions it has to
> make already dividing the orange coalition will be used to fight the
> next general election in December 2010.
>
> Personally I think both NATO and Russia are exploiting this
> economically challenged little country.


Wow, we agree about something. The only thing we can be
certain of is that everyone will operate in their perceived best
interests.

> I think as both. I know one Russian/Ukrainian who is obviously very
> pro Russian. He certainly sees himself as both and has both passports.
> The Russian and Ukrainian governments both allow this arrangement.


I'd bet those who perceive themselves as both are more at
ease with Russia than those who don't.

>
> > > What about Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
> > > Uzbekistan, Belarus, Slovakia, Serbia etc
>
> >            What about them?
>
> Well they are all ex-USSR states who are on good terms with Russia.
> Why do they not feel they have anything to fear from Russia?


That really has nothing to do with those who fear/are
concerned over the possibility of Russia trying to reassert its
previous power and influence.

>
> Sorry USSR states, I think you knew what I intended


Uh, no...that confused me. To answer your question, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Estonia. There are also the former Soviet client states
of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Hungary.

[freeireland]

On 20 Aug, 11:29, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> > "The racist part is NOT helping others in the same situation."
> > helping only whites against genocide is a racist agenda. However I
> > disagree with this for in example in Georgia NATO did not even hold an
> > emergency session when Georgia attacked Ossetian civilians in South
> > Ossetia. In this instance and even now they are largely
>
> The example I was giving was why the US got involved in
> the former Yugoslavia, but not Darfur or Rwanda. The US is not NATO.
> Also, firing some missiles into a city is not genocide...it may well
> be a war crime, but it's not genocide.
>
>
>
> > > What about them? At the time, the Serbs had the guns and
> > > the agenda.
>
> > Everyone had guns and everyone had agendas!
>
> The Serbs had the vast majority of the guns.
>

Let it be clear the Serbs where not the only people with guns and they
where not the only ethnic group to commit war crimes, yet they are the
only ethnic grouping to be punished for it. If the Serbs had most
guns as you claim then start putting figures to it.


>
>
> > The cold war is over and the organisation has no other reason to
> > exist.
>
> Your opinion? NATO was formed to protect against Soviet
> aggression, but I'm pretty sure its charter says nothing about "We'll
> disband if the Soviets fold like a rotten chicken coop".


Then what is the reason for their existence?

>
>
>
> > Yes it does and the Ukraine as a prime example. It is not as simple
> > as saying countries fear Russia or are pro NATO because by large most
> > are divided on the matter. As for fearing Russia I doubt any fear them
> > in military terms but certainly maybe in energy and funding terms they
> > fear both Russia and NATO.
>
> > For example again Ukraine joining NATO would likely mean no more
> > subsidised gas or oil. No more state pensions paid by Russia and a
> > huge drop in the countries income as the Russian gas pipeline would
> > cease pumping. Ukraine's fears in Serbia/Kosovo have been realised.
> > NATO recognising Kosovo as independent has opened an alternative route
> > through Serbia and strong Serbian ties with Moscow that gives Russia a
> > similar priced option to supply southern Europe. Ukraine are in a very
> > difficult position economically and the difficult decisions it has to
> > make already dividing the orange coalition will be used to fight the
> > next general election in December 2010.
>
> > Personally I think both NATO and Russia are exploiting this
> > economically challenged little country.
>
> Wow, we agree about something. The only thing we can be
> certain of is that everyone will operate in their perceived best
> interests.

So at last you agree NATO is an organistion which now has the aim of
exploiting economically challenged countries and eventually trying to
expand its military into them. That is classic imperialism.


>
> > I think as both. I know one Russian/Ukrainian who is obviously very
> > pro Russian. He certainly sees himself as both and has both passports.
> > The Russian and Ukrainian governments both allow this arrangement.
>
> I'd bet those who perceive themselves as both are more at
> ease with Russia than those who don't.
>

Clearly thats not the case at the recent polls, as I have shown that
pro Russian parties are ahead of the pro NATO parties by a huge
majority. Ukranian/Russians are in no-way the majority in the Ukraine.
Your claim just does not add up to what recent polls say.


>
>
> > > > What about Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
> > > > Uzbekistan, Belarus, Slovakia, Serbia etc
>
> > > What about them?
>
> > Well they are all ex-USSR states who are on good terms with Russia.
> > Why do they not feel they have anything to fear from Russia?
>
> That really has nothing to do with those who fear/are
> concerned over the possibility of Russia trying to reassert its
> previous power and influence.
>
>
>
> > Sorry USSR states, I think you knew what I intended
>
> Uh, no...that confused me. To answer your question, Latvia,
> Lithuania, and Estonia. There are also the former Soviet client states
> of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Hungary.

No probs my mistake.

The very point I am making the minority of former USSR states do not
fear Russia in at all. For example Hungary, Bulgaria and the Czech
Republic are all in relative good relations with Russia especially
considering the agreements with Russia, Serbia and Italy etc to build
the South Stream gas pipeline. Infact many believe its the building
of this South Stream gas pipeline that is the real issue behind the
troubled NATO-Russia relationsand is why NATO are willing to turn a
blind eye to Georgian genocide as they do not want to depend on
Russian gas and oil. Of course this is speculation but quite
plausable.

As for Baltic states the modern ethnic hatred they have with Russia
and vice versa largely stems from WW II. In reality it has little to
do with modern era Russia and it will always be.

Though heres the reality most former USSR states are on good terms
with Russia including many in eastern Europe. By enlarge most of
Russias border disputes have been solved through diplomacy.


So why is it some former USSR eastern european countries claim to fear
Russia, while most former USSR states including some in Eastern
Europe in general have good relations with Russia?

[conwaycaine]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2753ebe4-aa7c-4c3c-bb51-***@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 18 Aug, 17:57, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:

> Has anyone asked the Eastern Europeans? I mean, are they
> more afraid of NATO or Russia?

Eastern European countries are divided on Nato. Take Ukraine. After
next years general election they will more than likely have a pro
Russian president. The Orange revolution coalition has broken up.

***************

I'd say Russia, given half a chance will see to that.

[Falcon]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bf150e0-a295-4204-b46f-***@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Aug, 16:42, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>> "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:jygqk.13178$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:722793f4-15f8-4211-9f8f-***@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> [...]
>> >> The only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to
>> >> gain
>> >> influence. [...]
>>
>> > What can I say?
>> > The US has too many people of *nglish descent living here.
>> > Those old traits die hard.
>>
>> Leaving aside the totally uncalled for swipe at an innocent party, since
>> when did Georgia choosing to apply to join NATO amount to US imperialism?
>> I
>> can understand Russia not liking it, but it's hardly our bloody fault.
>> Surely someone has the cart before the horse. Again.
>>
>
> Nato is obviously driven by the US and Serbia, Kosovo is the best
> example of how Nato is expanding its borders, the key objective for
> imperialists. Threw military action and coercive diplomacy Federal
> Republic of Yugoslavia was completely ripped apart,
[...]

Good grief You're propagandist brain, such as it is, is running away with
you again. In addition to former Warsaw Pact countries who joined NATO after
the fall of the Soviet Union, five more former Eastern Bloc counties have
applied to join since 2004: Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan,
Moldova and two Balkan countries, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro all
petitioned to enter partnership arrangements with the alliance *of their own
free will*. No-one - absolutely no-one - is forcing them to do it.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
------------------------------

[Die Whigphilosophie der Geschichte im Hefeweizen]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:25:50 +0100, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net>
wrote:

>> Nato is obviously driven by the US and Serbia, Kosovo is the best
>> example of how Nato is expanding its borders, the key objective for
>> imperialists. Threw military action and coercive diplomacy Federal
>> Republic of Yugoslavia was completely ripped apart,
>[...]
>
>Good grief You're propagandist brain, such as it is, is running away with
>you again.

Don't forget Milosevic's enlightened response to particularist
nationalist opposition to becoming part of the new Greater Serbian
Imperium.

'How dare those imperialists resist my imperialism!'

I do like the idea that enlisting brutal paramilitary militias to
suppress secessionist minorities by reprisal and atrocity is a valid
defence against the encroachments of a larger imperialism.

It's only a shame Lloyd George's spin doctors hadn't thought of that
excuse when they tried it long ago in a galaxy far, far away... I
look forward to Kev bringing it up the next time the orbiting Tan
thread returns to the sci solar system.

Gavin Bailey

--

"The Marxists who ruled Soviet Russia refused to acknowledge any community of interest
with the capitalist world. Instead they preached international revolution, with tiresome
results in Asia." - A.J.P. Taylor

[Falcon]

"Die Whigphilosophie der Geschichte im Hefeweizen"
<***@delete.me.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:25:50 +0100, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Nato is obviously driven by the US and Serbia, Kosovo is the best
>>> example of how Nato is expanding its borders, the key objective for
>>> imperialists. Threw military action and coercive diplomacy Federal
>>> Republic of Yugoslavia was completely ripped apart,
>>[...]
>>
>>Good grief You're propagandist brain, such as it is, is running away with
>>you again.
>
> Don't forget Milosevic's enlightened response to particularist
> nationalist opposition to becoming part of the new Greater Serbian
> Imperium.
>
> 'How dare those imperialists resist my imperialism!'
>
> I do like the idea that enlisting brutal paramilitary militias to
> suppress secessionist minorities by reprisal and atrocity is a valid
> defence against the encroachments of a larger imperialism.
>
> It's only a shame Lloyd George's spin doctors hadn't thought of that
> excuse when they tried it long ago in a galaxy far, far away... I
> look forward to Kev bringing it up the next time the orbiting Tan
> thread returns to the sci solar system.

Now that's a fascinating prospect. If the temporal shift he inhabits
maintains it's structural integrity for long enough, I expect he'll jump in
when the presence of British peacekeepers on Irish soil is mentioned again.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
British Soldier killed in Afghanistan
http://xrl.us/onwod (Link to www.mod.uk)
------------------------------

[conwaycaine]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bf150e0-a295-4204-b46f-***@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 18 Aug, 16:42, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

You do realize that damned few Irishmen are immigrating to Russia.
You may well end up being the first in this century.

[freeireland]

On 18 Aug, 16:32, "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:722793f4-15f8-4211-9f8f-***@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > conwaycaine wrote:
>
> >> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> >> > South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> >> > the Merkans world dominian over energy.  What is wrong with bicycles?
>
> >> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
> >> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
> >> destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis
> >> on
> >> Stalingrad.
>
> > So are you saying the Georgians did not fire Grad Rockets into a
> > civilian city?
>
> Oh yes, they fired.
> But the city was not leveled as the Ruskies claimed.

Why have you been there and seen it for yourself?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLaVjN-pLF8
Thats a CNN report.


>
> > You tell me how many died then?
>
> I understand about 40 civilians,

At least 44 bodies where identified at the makeshift morgue in
Tskhinvali's makeshift hospital as the original hospital was hit. This
is also a complete and utter misunderstanding of Ossetian culture. For
example the woman who spent 3 nights in a basement with her dead son
had friends help bury him in their garden. The number 5 school
football pitch in Tskhinvali is since the 1992 conflict a graveyard.

Tskhinvali was not the only place to see battle and its also very
likely that many victims are buried in their basements.

As for lying maybe you should ask Saakasvili how he personally saw two
500 lb bombs fall in Gori marketplace yet somehow left it unscathed.

Or how footage of the destroyed Gori broadcast on CNN was actually
footage from Tskhinvali. Infact a UN Aid convey has claimed Gori has
not suffered much damage at all.

Or why Fox news cut short a young American/Ossetian/Georgian girl's
interview short as she was clearly saying something they did not
like, not once but twice. In a 2 minute interview they had two
commercial breaks.

>
> > The videos and pictures of Tskhinvali etc are widely avaiable for all
> > to see.
>
> Filmed by the Ruskies?
> Who, BTW, did their part in inflecting damage.
> Again, the damage was nowhere near as severe as Stalingrad suffered (as the
> Ruskies claimed).


I have clearly shown footage from a CNN report.


>
> >> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
> >> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.
>
> > You clearly have no idea about Russian intentions. Clearly this is an
> > attempt by the US once again by proxy to dominate the region.
>
> Two "Clearly"'s in a row?
> You are Irish, for gawd's sake.
> Write like it.

I'll write as I wish thank you very much.

>
> > Russia
> > has been able to negotiate agreements with most of those former USSR
> > republics and solve most border disputes even those with China. The
> > only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to gain
> > influence. Russia has withdrawn miltitary basis from places like Cuba
> > and Vietnam places of contention , these are hardly the actions of
> > imperialists. Even then any disputes they do have are along their own
> > borders. Then take a look at the US and the UK, they have troops
> > forcably not only trying to dominate their regions but those thousands
> > of miles away.
>
> What can I say?
> The US has too many people of *nglish descent living here.
> Those old traits die hard.

The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian.
Some instances of which I have already pointed out.

[Falcon]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ee0b4f3-42b9-427d-9f12-***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
[...]

> The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian.
> Some instances of which I have already pointed out.

Bollocks. You're a myopic twit sometimes. Russia Today reported on the
Georgian "genocide" against south Ossetian civilians from day one.
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28777 Bias goes both ways.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
------------------------------

[freeireland]

On 18 Aug, 17:26, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5ee0b4f3-42b9-427d-9f12-***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian.
> > Some instances of which I have already pointed out.
>
> Bollocks. You're a myopic twit sometimes. Russia Today reported on the
> Georgian "genocide" against south Ossetian civilians from day one.http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28777Bias goes both ways.
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> ------------------------------

Firing grad rockets into a city mainly occupied by civilians can be
interpreted as genocide. The Georgian attack struck residential areas,
hospitals and the university. It was no coincidence it happened the
same day as the start of a certain sporting event and it was unlikely
that African American and Ukranian mercernaries where drafted in at
the last minute.

This was a pre planned attack on the civilian Ossetian nation and
could not only be considered as genocide but a crime against
humanity.


"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole
or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions
of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole
or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group."

1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide Article 2


As for bias how can you explain how Gori was largely undamaged
according to a UN aid convoy despite pictures yet CNN broadcasting
pictures of it being destroyed. Or how it was claimed as fact that two
500lb bombs where dropped in Goris market square and broadcast it was
untrue. Why did fox cut the young Ossetian/American girl off?

[Falcon]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f526d8a-925d-48bd-9502-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Aug, 17:26, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5ee0b4f3-42b9-427d-9f12-***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> [...]
>>
>> > The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian.
>> > Some instances of which I have already pointed out.
>>
>> Bollocks. You're a myopic twit sometimes. Russia Today reported on the
>> Georgian "genocide" against south Ossetian civilians from day
>> one.http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28777.
>> Bias goes both ways.

> Firing grad rockets into a city mainly occupied by civilians can be
> interpreted as genocide. The Georgian attack struck residential areas,
> hospitals and the university. [...]

Yes yes yes, switch the propaganda chip off for a bit Kevin and stick to the
fucking point. I'm not disputing all that. The point of my interjection was
your stupid suggestion that Russia hadn't shown as much bias in it's
reporting of the conflict. That's bollocks; the evidence is that their
reporting was totally one sided. Search the Russian archives for any hint of
balanced reporting, and you won't find any. On the other hand I watched
three successive interviews on BBC News 24 in which the presenters gave the
Georgian President and a government spokesman and extremely hard time.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
------------------------------

[freeireland]

On 18 Aug, 21:06, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8f526d8a-925d-48bd-9502-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 18 Aug, 17:26, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:5ee0b4f3-42b9-427d-9f12-***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> >> [...]
>
> >> > The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian.
> >> > Some instances of which I have already pointed out.
>
> >> Bollocks. You're a myopic twit sometimes. Russia Today reported on the
> >> Georgian "genocide" against south Ossetian civilians from day
> >> one.http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28777.
> >> Bias goes both ways.
> > Firing grad rockets into a city mainly occupied by civilians can be
> > interpreted as genocide. The Georgian attack struck residential areas,
> > hospitals and the university. [...]
>
> Yes yes yes, switch the propaganda chip off for a bit Kevin and stick to the
> fucking point. I'm not disputing all that. The point of my interjection was
> your stupid suggestion that Russia hadn't shown as much bias in it's
> reporting of the conflict. That's bollocks; the evidence is that their
> reporting was totally one sided. Search the Russian archives for any hint of
> balanced reporting, and you won't find any. On the other hand I watched
> three successive interviews on BBC News 24 in which the presenters gave the
> Georgian President and a government spokesman and extremely hard time.
>

Look Falcon do not try and intimidate me by dropping a name that you
think is mine. I know exactly how you came about it and it shows you
are not only trying to find out my identity but use it on these forums
to intimidate me. Thankfully I had the commonsense to put another name
in a certain profile and you using it only makes you look foolish.

Secondly I challenge you to quote where I have made the claim "Russia
hadn't shown as much bias in it's reporting of the conflict."

As for BBC News 24 one reporter Lyse Doucet even suggested that Russia
had attacked Abkhazia by sending troops into that breakaway republic.

Tell me how often the BBC have had the south Ossetian or Abkhazian
presidents on?

The BBC reporting of the destuction and shelling of Gori which are now
independently shown to be unfounded and untrue got more airtime than
Tskhinvali. They even broadcast the apparent CNN footage of Gori in
ruins when it was actually Tskhinvali.





> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> ------------------------------

[Falcon]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:372a3d1c-52f8-41d0-aed7-***@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Aug, 21:06, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8f526d8a-925d-48bd-9502-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 18 Aug, 17:26, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>> >> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:5ee0b4f3-42b9-427d-9f12-***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> > The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian.
>> >> > Some instances of which I have already pointed out.
>>
>> >> Bollocks. You're a myopic twit sometimes. Russia Today reported on the
>> >> Georgian "genocide" against south Ossetian civilians from day
>> >> one.http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28777.
>> >> Bias goes both ways.
>> > Firing grad rockets into a city mainly occupied by civilians can be
>> > interpreted as genocide. The Georgian attack struck residential areas,
>> > hospitals and the university. [...]
>>
>> Yes yes yes, switch the propaganda chip off for a bit Kevin and stick to
>> the
>> fucking point. I'm not disputing all that. The point of my interjection
>> was
>> your stupid suggestion that Russia hadn't shown as much bias in it's
>> reporting of the conflict. That's bollocks; the evidence is that their
>> reporting was totally one sided. Search the Russian archives for any hint
>> of
>> balanced reporting, and you won't find any. On the other hand I watched
>> three successive interviews on BBC News 24 in which the presenters gave
>> the
>> Georgian President and a government spokesman and extremely hard time.
>>
>
> Look Falcon do not try and intimidate me by dropping a name that you
> think is mine. I know exactly how you came about it and it shows you
> are not only trying to find out my identity but use it on these forums
> to intimidate me. Thankfully I had the commonsense to put another name
> in a certain profile and you using it only makes you look foolish.

Ok Kev. No probs.

> Secondly I challenge you to quote where I have made the claim "Russia
> hadn't shown as much bias in it's reporting of the conflict."

Oh, OK. Hard one that. I might have to do some searching. Oh, no wait, there
it is, silly me, up there. Look, up there where I quoted you. Scroll up a
bit. Yes there it is:

"The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian."

Now look, if you're just intent on winding everyone up and you can't be
serious for five minutes there's no point in going on. You'll deny that you
accused NATO of breaking up Yugoslavia next.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
------------------------------

[freeireland]

On 19 Aug, 08:36, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:372a3d1c-52f8-41d0-aed7-***@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 18 Aug, 21:06, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:8f526d8a-925d-48bd-9502-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 18 Aug, 17:26, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> >> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:5ee0b4f3-42b9-427d-9f12-***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> [...]
>
> >> >> > The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian.
> >> >> > Some instances of which I have already pointed out.
>
> >> >> Bollocks. You're a myopic twit sometimes. Russia Today reported on the
> >> >> Georgian "genocide" against south Ossetian civilians from day
> >> >> one.http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28777.
> >> >> Bias goes both ways.
> >> > Firing grad rockets into a city mainly occupied by civilians can be
> >> > interpreted as genocide. The Georgian attack struck residential areas,
> >> > hospitals and the university. [...]
>
> >> Yes yes yes, switch the propaganda chip off for a bit Kevin and stick to
> >> the
> >> fucking point. I'm not disputing all that. The point of my interjection
> >> was
> >> your stupid suggestion that Russia hadn't shown as much bias in it's
> >> reporting of the conflict. That's bollocks; the evidence is that their
> >> reporting was totally one sided. Search the Russian archives for any hint
> >> of
> >> balanced reporting, and you won't find any. On the other hand I watched
> >> three successive interviews on BBC News 24 in which the presenters gave
> >> the
> >> Georgian President and a government spokesman and extremely hard time.
>
> > Look Falcon do not try and intimidate me by dropping a name that you
> > think is mine. I know exactly how you came about it and it shows you
> > are not only trying to find out my identity but use it on these forums
> > to intimidate me. Thankfully I had the commonsense to put another name
> > in a certain profile and you using it only makes you look foolish.
>
> Ok Kev. No probs.
>
> > Secondly I challenge you to quote where I have made the claim "Russia
> > hadn't shown as much bias in it's reporting of the conflict."
>
> Oh, OK. Hard one that. I might have to do some searching. Oh, no wait, there
> it is, silly me, up there. Look, up there where I quoted you. Scroll up a
> bit. Yes there it is:

Its a hotmail account which was created with the sole intention of
protecting my identity. Your subtle threat has been exposed and will
have no impact on my posts.

>
> "The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian."
>
> Now look, if you're just intent on winding everyone up and you can't be
> serious for five minutes there's no point in going on. You'll deny that you
> accused NATO of breaking up Yugoslavia next.
>

Then go ahead an explain how Russia has shown as much bias. Russia
has not shown video footage of a bombed city and claimed it was
another. It was the wider western media covered a claim that Gori
market place was hit with two 500 lb bombs personally eye witnessed by
a certain president when independent UN aid convoys show that to be
incorrect. The BBC also displayed footage of a demonstration in in
Georgia's capital show support for its president yet did not tell us
that demonstrators where paid $50 dollars. They did not show any
footage of Russian demonstrations in Moscow or other cities in Europe.
They give the impression that Georgia is a democracy when in truth
the elections of last year where extremely controversial from
independent TV stations being closed to the arrests of political
opponents. They have not shown the clear media bias in the US in
regards to the 12 year US/Ossetian/Georgian girl being cut of Fox
news.

Now tell me what the Russian media ha not covered?

> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> ------------------------------

[Falcon]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e376e5ab-4a34-4da3-a4c3-***@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Aug, 08:36, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
[...]
>> > Secondly I challenge you to quote where I have made the claim "Russia
>> > hadn't shown as much bias in it's reporting of the conflict."
>>
>> Oh, OK. Hard one that. I might have to do some searching. Oh, no wait,
>> there it is, silly me, up there. Look, up there where I quoted you.
>> Scroll up a bit. Yes there it is:
>
> Its a hotmail account which was created with the sole intention of
> protecting my identity. Your subtle threat has been exposed and will
> have no impact on my posts.

What threat? Please don't flatter yourself; it can only lead to
dissapointment.

>> "The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian."
>>
>> Now look, if you're just intent on winding everyone up and you can't be
>> serious for five minutes there's no point in going on. You'll deny that
>> you accused NATO of breaking up Yugoslavia next.
>>
> Then go ahead an explain how Russia has shown as much bias. Russia
> has not shown video footage of a bombed city and claimed it was
> another. It was the wider western media covered a claim that Gori
> market place was hit with two 500 lb bombs personally eye witnessed by
> a certain president when independent UN aid convoys show that to be
> incorrect. The BBC also displayed footage of a demonstration in in
> Georgia's capital show support for its president yet did not tell us
> that demonstrators where paid $50 dollars. They did not show any
> footage of Russian demonstrations in Moscow or other cities in Europe.
> They give the impression that Georgia is a democracy when in truth
> the elections of last year where extremely controversial from
> independent TV stations being closed to the arrests of political
> opponents. They have not shown the clear media bias in the US in
> regards to the 12 year US/Ossetian/Georgian girl being cut of Fox
> news.
>
> Now tell me what the Russian media has not covered?

I'm confused. First you say that Russian media coverage is less biased. I
say it is as just biased and provide a link to a Russian media site as
evidence. You then ask me to show where you claimed that the Russian media
was less biased. Helpful as ever, I reply quoting the line of your post in
which you claimed the Russian media was less biased and then you then go on
to repeat the claim that Russian media is less biased in its reporting.

Great. I'm pleased that at least you're being consistent, even if you can't
remember how. All the arguments are out in the open now, so let's not go
over the same ground again; let's act like adults and just agree that we
disagree.

Now could you explain how you think NATO caused the break-up of the former
Yugoslavia?

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
------------------------------

[freeireland]

On 19 Aug, 12:26, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e376e5ab-4a34-4da3-a4c3-***@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 19 Aug, 08:36, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> > Secondly I challenge you to quote where I have made the claim "Russia
> >> > hadn't shown as much bias in it's reporting of the conflict."
>
> >> Oh, OK. Hard one that. I might have to do some searching. Oh, no wait,
> >> there it is, silly me, up there. Look, up there where I quoted you.
> >> Scroll up a bit. Yes there it is:
>
> > Its a hotmail account which was created with the sole intention of
> > protecting my identity. Your subtle threat has been exposed and will
> > have no impact on my posts.
>
> What threat? Please don't flatter yourself; it can only lead to
> dissapointment.
>
>
>
> >> "The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian."
>
> >> Now look, if you're just intent on winding everyone up and you can't be
> >> serious for five minutes there's no point in going on. You'll deny that
> >> you accused NATO of breaking up Yugoslavia next.
>
> > Then go ahead an explain how Russia has shown as much bias.  Russia
> > has not shown video footage of a bombed city and claimed it was
> > another. It was the wider western media  covered a claim that Gori
> > market place was hit with two 500 lb bombs personally eye witnessed by
> > a certain president when independent UN aid convoys show that to be
> > incorrect. The BBC also displayed footage of a demonstration in in
> > Georgia's capital show support for its president yet did not tell us
> > that demonstrators where paid $50 dollars. They did not show any
> > footage of Russian demonstrations in Moscow or other cities in Europe.
> > They give the impression  that Georgia is a democracy when in truth
> > the elections of last year where extremely controversial from
> > independent TV stations being closed to the arrests of political
> > opponents. They have not shown the clear media bias in the US in
> > regards to the 12 year US/Ossetian/Georgian girl being cut of Fox
> > news.
>
> > Now tell me what the Russian media has not covered?
>
> I'm confused. First you say that Russian media coverage is less biased. I
> say it is as just biased and provide a link to a Russian media site as
> evidence. You then ask me to show where you claimed that the Russian media
> was less biased. Helpful as ever, I reply quoting the line of your post in
> which you claimed the Russian media was less biased and then you then go on
> to repeat the claim that Russian media is less biased in its reporting.


I can see you get confused a lot!.

First and foremost as I have already pointed out Georgia fired grad
rockets into an Ossetian city targeting civilians. When Russia Today
called this genocide they where quite accurate. I would go even
further and say its a crime against humanity. This is a legitimate
point of view which is quite justified considering Georgias actions,
the timing of those actions and the destruction shown.


So again I challenge you to show where the Russian bias has been to
the extend of miss-reporting cities being bombed when they had not.
The Russian media has given coverage in fairly equal measure to
outside politicians including those against such as the current
Ukrainian president. Tell me how many times you have seen the pro
Russian Slovakian president on the BBC. How often have you seen the
South Ossetian president on the BBC? Then tell me how often you have
seen.




>
> Great. I'm pleased that at least you're being consistent, even if you can't
> remember how. All the arguments are out in the open now, so let's not go
> over the same ground again; let's act like adults and just agree that we
> disagree.
>
> Now could you explain how you think NATO caused the break-up of the former
> Yugoslavia?

"Surely then the real aggression in Yugoslavia began with the western
recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. The territorial integrity of a
state [Yugoslavia] that was voluntarily created and which had existed
since December 1918 was swept aside. In 1991, new state recognition
policy proved to be an inventive method of destroying long-standing
sovereign independent states. When several rich and powerful states
decide to take a sovereign independent state apart through the policy
of recognition, how is this state supposed to defend itself? There can
be no deterrence or defense against this form of destruction."

(Raju Thomas, "Nationalism, Secession and Conflict: Legacies from the
Former Yugoslavia."


>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> ------------------------------

[Falcon]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab9c3d78-ef2b-43db-b4ba-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Aug, 12:26, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
[...]

>> I'm confused. First you say that Russian media coverage is less biased. I
>> say it is as just biased and provide a link to a Russian media site as
>> evidence. You then ask me to show where you claimed that the Russian
>> media
>> was less biased. Helpful as ever, I reply quoting the line of your post
>> in
>> which you claimed the Russian media was less biased and then you then go
>> on
>> to repeat the claim that Russian media is less biased in its reporting.
>
> I can see you get confused a lot!.
>
> First and foremost as I have already pointed out Georgia fired grad
> rockets into an Ossetian city targeting civilians. When Russia Today
> called this genocide they where quite accurate. I would go even
> further and say its a crime against humanity. This is a legitimate
> point of view which is quite justified considering Georgias actions,
> the timing of those actions and the destruction shown.
>
> So again I challenge you to show where the Russian bias has been to
> the extend of miss-reporting cities being bombed when they had not.
> The Russian media has given coverage in fairly equal measure to
> outside politicians including those against such as the current
> Ukrainian president. Tell me how many times you have seen the pro
> Russian Slovakian president on the BBC. How often have you seen the
> South Ossetian president on the BBC? Then tell me how often you have
> seen.

For someone who challenged me to quote where you had made the claim that
Russia hadn't shown as much bias in it's reporting of the conflict, you're
doing a pretty good job of making a complete arse of yourself.

>> Great. I'm pleased that at least you're being consistent, even if you
>> can't
>> remember how. All the arguments are out in the open now, so let's not go
>> over the same ground again; let's act like adults and just agree that we
>> disagree.

I've nothing to add to that, apart from the fact that only one of us appears
to be able to act like an adult.

>> Now could you explain how you think NATO caused the break-up of the
>> former
>> Yugoslavia?
>
> "Surely then the real aggression in Yugoslavia began with the western
> recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. The territorial integrity of a
> state [Yugoslavia] that was voluntarily created and which had existed
> since December 1918 was swept aside. In 1991, new state recognition
> policy proved to be an inventive method of destroying long-standing
> sovereign independent states.

Slovenia declared independence in June 1991 and was attacked by Yugoslav
forces *a day later*. Slovenia was officially recognised by all the European
Community member states and joined the United Nations *six months later*,
along with the other post-Yugoslav states. Surely the real aggression
started on the day after the declaration of independence, not when the
country was internationally recognised. Or are we still stuck in that
troublesome temporal anomaly?

> When several rich and powerful states
> decide to take a sovereign independent state apart through the policy
> of recognition, how is this state supposed to defend itself? There can
> be no deterrence or defense against this form of destruction."

Well, I think we've dealt with that.

Now think very carefully [redacted]. In being recognised by and subsequently
joining the UN, who do you think was also complicit in destroying a
long-standing sovereign state in addition to NATO and all those evil
"western" countries?

The Yugoslav Federation was "swept aside" by the majority of its
inhabitants - paradoxically at exactly the same time as the sovereign state
of Georgia (which includes south Ossetia) was being given its independence
by the Soviet Union.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
------------------------------

[freeireland]

On 19 Aug, 16:35, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ab9c3d78-ef2b-43db-b4ba-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On 19 Aug, 12:26, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >> I'm confused. First you say that Russian media coverage is less biased. I
> >> say it is as just biased and provide a link to a Russian media site as
> >> evidence. You then ask me to show where you claimed that the Russian
> >> media
> >> was less biased. Helpful as ever, I reply quoting the line of your post
> >> in
> >> which you claimed the Russian media was less biased and then you then go
> >> on
> >> to repeat the claim that Russian media is less biased in its reporting.
>
> > I can see you get confused a lot!.
>
> > First and foremost as I have already pointed out Georgia fired grad
> > rockets into an Ossetian city targeting civilians. When Russia Today
> > called this genocide they where quite accurate. I would go even
> > further and say its a crime against humanity. This is a legitimate
> > point of view which is quite justified considering Georgias actions,
> > the timing of those actions and the destruction shown.
>
> > So again I challenge you to show where the Russian bias has been to
> > the extend of miss-reporting cities being bombed when they had not.
> > The Russian media has given coverage in fairly equal measure to
> > outside politicians including those against such as the current
> > Ukrainian president. Tell me how many times you have seen the pro
> > Russian Slovakian president on the BBC. How often have you seen the
> > South Ossetian president on the BBC? Then tell me how often you have
> > seen.
>
> For someone who challenged me to quote where you had made the claim that
> Russia hadn't shown as much bias in it's reporting of the conflict, you're
> doing a pretty good job of making a complete arse of yourself.
>
> >> Great. I'm pleased that at least you're being consistent, even if you
> >> can't
> >> remember how. All the arguments are out in the open now, so let's not go
> >> over the same ground again; let's act like adults and just agree that we
> >> disagree.
>
> I've nothing to add to that, apart from the fact that only one of us appears
> to be able to act like an adult.


Maybe though modesty certainly is not one of your strong points. First
subtle threats and now subtle name calling, hardly the actions of an
adult!


>
> >> Now could you explain how you think NATO caused the break-up of the
> >> former
> >> Yugoslavia?
>
> > "Surely then the real aggression in Yugoslavia began with the western
> > recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. The territorial integrity of a
> > state [Yugoslavia] that was voluntarily created and which had existed
> > since December 1918 was swept aside. In 1991, new state recognition
> > policy proved to be an inventive method of destroying long-standing
> > sovereign independent states.
>
> Slovenia declared independence in June 1991 and was attacked by Yugoslav
> forces *a day later*. Slovenia was officially recognised by all the European
> Community member states and joined the United Nations *six months later*,
> along with the other post-Yugoslav states. Surely the real aggression
> started on the day after the declaration of independence, not when the
> country was internationally recognised. Or are we still stuck in that
> troublesome temporal anomaly?

If Slovenia had declared independance from Yugoslavia then the war
was not towards a Yugoslav state but an independant Slovenia. If
Slovenia was not recognised as independant then could it have started
agressions on itself?


>
> > When several rich and powerful states
> > decide to take a sovereign independent state apart through the policy
> > of recognition, how is this state supposed to defend itself? There can
> > be no deterrence or defense against this form of destruction."
>
> Well, I think we've dealt with that.


Where?


>
> Now think very carefully [redacted]. In being recognised by and subsequently
> joining the UN, who do you think was also complicit in destroying a
> long-standing sovereign state in addition to NATO and all those evil
> "western" countries?
>
> The Yugoslav Federation was "swept aside" by the majority of its
> inhabitants - paradoxically at exactly the same time as the sovereign state
> of Georgia (which includes south Ossetia) was being given its independence
> by the Soviet Union.


The reality is these are border and ethnic disputes as a result of the
breakup of the former USSR. This breakup should have put an end to
NATO.


The reality is NATO do not hide the fact that they wish to expand into
Eastern Europe,

"The Western Balkans remains the major exception to the growth and
enlargement success. This region, now completely surrounded by North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, has the potential for
reoccurring instability and insecurity in Europe. It is important for
the future of NATO and the security of Europe that the Alliance
formulate and execute in the reasonably near future strategic concept
and membership strategy to integrate these territories with the rest
of Europe.."


This expansion also not only allows imperialist western european
nations to get a grip on strategic military positions aimed at Russia
by also force economically challenged nations who want membership to
purchase currently $35 billion worth of military hardware. Of course
these western nations have created a range of financial arrangements
normally the selling off natural resources or allowing foreign miltary
basis. Kosovo and Poland are prime examples of this. NATO also
prioritises military aid over economic and politcal helping the arms
trade into eastern europe. Not only is there no external threat to
eastern or central europe its NATOs selective arming of Eastern
European regions that poses the greatest secruity risk. The prime
example of this is the US and German arming of Georgia which now has
potential t start another cold war era.

George Bush Senior described eastern europe as "a peace dividend and a
New World Order that could now be harvested". The reality most of the
conflicts



>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> ------------------------------

[Falcon]

freeireland wrote:

> On 19 Aug, 16:35, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Slovenia declared independence in June 1991 and was attacked by Yugoslav
>> forces *a day later*. Slovenia was officially recognised by all the
>> European Community member states and joined the United Nations *six
>> months later*,
>> along with the other post-Yugoslav states. Surely the real aggression
>> started on the day after the declaration of independence, not when the
>> country was internationally recognised. Or are we still stuck in that
>> troublesome temporal anomaly?
>
> If Slovenia had declared independance from Yugoslavia then the war
> was not towards a Yugoslav state but an independant Slovenia. If
> Slovenia was not recognised as independant then could it have started
> agressions on itself?

Pardon? I didn't understand a word of that. Please try again.

>>> When several rich and powerful states
>>> decide to take a sovereign independent state apart through the policy
>>> of recognition, how is this state supposed to defend itself? There can
>>> be no deterrence or defense against this form of destruction."
>>
>> Well, I think we've dealt with that.
>
> Where?

Above. Too complicated for you?

>> Now think very carefully [redacted]. In being recognised by and
>> subsequently joining the UN, who do you think was also complicit in
>> destroying a
>> long-standing sovereign state in addition to NATO and all those evil
>> "western" countries?
>>
>> The Yugoslav Federation was "swept aside" by the majority of its
>> inhabitants - paradoxically at exactly the same time as the sovereign
>> state of Georgia (which includes south Ossetia) was being given its
>> independence by the Soviet Union.
>
> The reality is these are border and ethnic disputes as a result of the
> breakup of the former USSR. This breakup should have put an end to
> NATO.

That statement alone acknowledges that your claim that NATO caused the
breakup of Yugoslavia was untrue. The rest is waffle and bluster. Save it
for someone who cares.

[...]

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Cpl Barry Dempsey:
Royal Highland Fusiliers [1979 - 2008]
http://xrl.us/onzmp (Link to www.mod.uk)
-------------------------------------------------------

[freeireland]

On 19 Aug, 23:52, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 19 Aug, 16:35, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Slovenia declared independence in June 1991 and was attacked by Yugoslav
> >> forces *a day later*. Slovenia was officially recognised by all the
> >> European Community member states and joined the United Nations *six
> >> months later*,
> >> along with the other post-Yugoslav states. Surely the real aggression
> >> started on the day after the declaration of independence, not when the
> >> country was internationally recognised. Or are we still stuck in that
> >> troublesome temporal anomaly?
>
> > If Slovenia  had declared independance from Yugoslavia then the war
> > was not towards a Yugoslav state but an independant Slovenia.  If
> > Slovenia was not recognised as independant then could it have started
> > agressions on itself?
>
> Pardon? I didn't understand a word of that. Please try again.

Too complicated for you?

>
> >>> When several rich and powerful states
> >>> decide to take a sovereign independent state apart through the policy
> >>> of recognition, how is this state supposed to defend itself? There can
> >>> be no deterrence or defense against this form of destruction."
>
> >> Well, I think we've dealt with that.
>
> > Where?
>
> Above. Too complicated for you?

lol

>
> >> Now think very carefully [redacted]. In being recognised by and
> >> subsequently  joining the UN, who do you think was also complicit in
> >> destroying a
> >> long-standing sovereign state in addition to NATO and all those evil
> >> "western" countries?
>
> >> The Yugoslav Federation was "swept aside" by the majority of its
> >> inhabitants - paradoxically at exactly the same time as the sovereign
> >> state  of Georgia (which includes south Ossetia) was being given its
> >> independence  by the Soviet Union.
>
> > The reality is these are border and ethnic disputes as a result of the
> > breakup of the former USSR. This breakup should have put an end to
> > NATO.
>
> That statement alone acknowledges that your claim that NATO caused the
> breakup of Yugoslavia was untrue. The rest is waffle and bluster. Save it
> for someone who cares.


No it doesn't. For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from the
potential threat of the USSR. With the break-up of the USSR NATO has
no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what are they
doing?

>
> [...]
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Cpl Barry Dempsey:
> Royal Highland Fusiliers [1979 - 2008]http://xrl.us/onzmp(Link towww.mod.uk)
> -------------------------------------------------------

[Falcon]

freeireland wrote:

> On 19 Aug, 23:52, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>> freeireland wrote:
>>> On 19 Aug, 16:35, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Slovenia declared independence in June 1991 and was attacked by
>>>> Yugoslav forces *a day later*. Slovenia was officially recognised by
>>>> all the European Community member states and joined the United Nations
>>>> *six months later*,
>>>> along with the other post-Yugoslav states. Surely the real aggression
>>>> started on the day after the declaration of independence, not when the
>>>> country was internationally recognised. Or are we still stuck in that
>>>> troublesome temporal anomaly?
>>
>>> If Slovenia had declared independance from Yugoslavia then the war
>>> was not towards a Yugoslav state but an independant Slovenia. If
>>> Slovenia was not recognised as independant then could it have started
>>> agressions on itself?
>>
>> Pardon? I didn't understand a word of that. Please try again.
>
> Too complicated for you?

Yes, frankly.

I'll try again. The article you quoted suggested that the policy regognition
by the EU and UN (which includes Russia, by the way) sparked the real
agression in the region. History shows that military action against the
break-away states started six months before international recognition took
place. Does "putting the cart before the horse" mean anything to you?

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Cpl Barry Dempsey:
Royal Highland Fusiliers [1979 - 2008]
http://xrl.us/onzmp (Link to www.mod.uk)
-------------------------------------------------------

[freeireland]

On 20 Aug, 11:48, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 19 Aug, 23:52, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> freeireland wrote:
> >>> On 19 Aug, 16:35, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> Slovenia declared independence in June 1991 and was attacked by
> >>>> Yugoslav forces *a day later*. Slovenia was officially recognised by
> >>>> all the European Community member states and joined the United Nations
> >>>> *six months later*,
> >>>> along with the other post-Yugoslav states. Surely the real aggression
> >>>> started on the day after the declaration of independence, not when the
> >>>> country was internationally recognised. Or are we still stuck in that
> >>>> troublesome temporal anomaly?
>
> >>> If Slovenia had declared independance from Yugoslavia then the war
> >>> was not towards a Yugoslav state but an independant Slovenia. If
> >>> Slovenia was not recognised as independant then could it have started
> >>> agressions on itself?
>
> >> Pardon? I didn't understand a word of that. Please try again.
>
> > Too complicated for you?
>
> Yes, frankly.
>
> I'll try again. The article you quoted suggested that the policy regognition
> by the EU and UN (which includes Russia, by the way) sparked the real
> agression in the region. History shows that military action against the
> break-away states started six months before international recognition took
> place. Does "putting the cart before the horse" mean anything to you?
>

The term aggression means offensive action. Since Slovenia was part
of the Yugoslav state how could the Yugoslav military have an
offensive on itself? Infact it could be considered a defensive
action. That is clearly the point the quote I gave was actually
making.



> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Cpl Barry Dempsey:
> Royal Highland Fusiliers [1979 - 2008]http://xrl.us/onzmp(Link towww.mod.uk)
> -------------------------------------------------------

[Fred J. McCall]

freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:No it doesn't. For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
:the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from the
:potential threat of the USSR. With the break-up of the USSR NATO has
:no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what are they
:doing?
:

Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
important, you silly twat.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[freeireland]

On 20 Aug, 14:10, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :No it doesn't.   For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
> :the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from the
> :potential threat of the USSR.  With the break-up of the USSR NATO has
> :no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what are they
> :doing?
> :
>
> Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
> important, you silly twat.


So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?


>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:On 20 Aug, 14:10, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :No it doesn't.   For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
:> :the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from the
:> :potential threat of the USSR.  With the break-up of the USSR NATO has
:> :no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what are they
:> :doing?
:> :
:>
:> Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
:> important, you silly twat.
:
:So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
:on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
:

No, the voices in your head are telling you that.

I'm telling you:

1) There was no 'genocide of its citizens'.

2) This wasn't an 'intervention'; it was a planned invasion.

3) They don't seem in any hurry to leave.

4) They're going about doing 'ethnic cleansing' by demolishing any
home or village that is actually Georgian.

5) They're ignoring even the weak agreement that they signed.

6) Think Germany and the Sudentenland...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[freeireland]

On 20 Aug, 15:22, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On 20 Aug, 14:10, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote::> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>
> :> :
> :> :No it doesn't.   For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
> :> :the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from the
> :> :potential threat of the USSR.  With the break-up of the USSR NATO has
> :> :no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what are they
> :> :doing?
> :> :
> :>
> :> Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
> :> important, you silly twat.
> :
> :So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
> :on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
> :
>
> No, the voices in your head are telling you that.
>
> I'm telling you:
>
> 1) There was no 'genocide of its citizens'.

The facts simply do not support that. First a grad rocket attack on a
civilian city is not only genocide, a crime against humanity but a
breach of the Geneva convention. Human Rights Watch have agreed that
Georgia was involved in the indiscriminate shelling and severe
destruction in residential areas of Tskhinvali.

Secondly the majority of people in South Ossetia have Russian
passports therefore Russian citizens.

"Please do not test the Georgian state's patience… Let's give peace
and dialogue a chance."

Saakashvili - Less than six hours before he ordered a grad rocket
attack on Russian civilians.

>
> 2) This wasn't an 'intervention'; it was a planned invasion.

Really then supply your evidence for that.


>
> 3) They don't seem in any hurry to leave.

Why should they be? If Russia do withdraw by the weekend as they
claim I would think that would be a very quick withdrawal.


>
> 4) They're going about doing 'ethnic cleansing' by demolishing any
> home or village that is actually Georgian.

You mean like Gori which was reported to have been destroyed and a
market place which had two 500lbs dropped on it. However this actually
turned out to be false.

According to video footage taken by the BBC its actually looters that
Georgian civilians are saying are the problem.


>
> 5) They're ignoring even the weak agreement that they signed.

The agreement was undermined when Georgia signed an different document
from everyone else!

>
> 6) Think Germany and the Sudentenland...
>

Yes I am thinking of Saakashvili's father and do note that Georgian
forces fought on the side of Nazi Germany.

As for Sudentenland tell me how many bombs fell on Georgia's capital
or when the Georgian government was overthrown?


> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

[conwaycaine]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14c0107b-ea22-4e01-8a9a-***@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 20 Aug, 15:22, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :
> :So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
> :on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
> :
>
> No, the voices in your head are telling you that.
>
> I'm telling you:
>
> 1) There was no 'genocide of its citizens'.

The facts simply do not support that. First a grad rocket attack on a
civilian city is not only genocide,
*****************************

You must tell me the name of the dictionary you use.........

***************************
a crime against humanity but a
breach of the Geneva convention. Human Rights Watch have agreed that
Georgia was involved in the indiscriminate shelling and severe
destruction in residential areas of Tskhinvali.
**********************

Cite?
(That's a term we use around here when we suspect some Irishman is having us
on)

***********************
Secondly the majority of people in South Ossetia have Russian
passports therefore Russian citizens.

"Please do not test the Georgian state's patience… Let's give peace
and dialogue a chance."

Saakashvili - Less than six hours before he ordered a grad rocket
attack on Russian civilians.

>
> 2) This wasn't an 'intervention'; it was a planned invasion.

Really then supply your evidence for that.
***********************

"Human Rights Watches" perhaps?

[freeireland]

On 20 Aug, 18:05, "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:14c0107b-ea22-4e01-8a9a-***@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 20 Aug, 15:22, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > :
> > :So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
> > :on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
> > :
>
> > No, the voices in your head are telling you that.
>
> > I'm telling you:
>
> > 1) There was no 'genocide of its citizens'.
>
> The facts simply do not support that. First a grad rocket attack on a
> civilian city is not only genocide,
> *****************************
>
> You must tell me the name of the dictionary you use.........
>
> ***************************
> a crime against humanity but a
> breach of the Geneva convention.  Human Rights Watch have agreed that
> Georgia was involved in the indiscriminate shelling and severe
> destruction in residential areas of Tskhinvali.
> **********************
>
> Cite?
> (That's a term we use around here when we suspect some Irishman is having us
> on)
>
> ***********************
> Secondly the majority of people in South Ossetia have Russian
> passports therefore Russian citizens.
>
> "Please do not test the Georgian state's patience… Let's give peace
> and dialogue a chance."
>
> Saakashvili  - Less than six hours before he ordered a grad rocket
> attack on Russian civilians.
>
>
>
> > 2) This wasn't an 'intervention'; it was a planned invasion.
>
> Really then supply your evidence for that.
> ***********************
>
> "Human Rights Watches" perhaps?

Then show me where "Human Rights Watch" claims Russian planned an
invasion?

Its a tad ironic for somebody who picks out typo or spelling errors to
actuall make some themselves don't you think. Maybe we should ask
"Human Rights Watches". What dictionary do you use?

[conwaycaine]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98d72b0f-9815-4aaa-9e9c-***@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 20 Aug, 18:05, "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:14c0107b-ea22-4e01-8a9a-***@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 20 Aug, 15:22, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > :
> > :So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
> > :on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
> > :
>
> > No, the voices in your head are telling you that.
>
> > I'm telling you:
>
> > 1) There was no 'genocide of its citizens'.
>
> The facts simply do not support that. First a grad rocket attack on a
> civilian city is not only genocide,
> *****************************
>
> You must tell me the name of the dictionary you use.........
>
> ***************************
> a crime against humanity but a
> breach of the Geneva convention. Human Rights Watch have agreed that
> Georgia was involved in the indiscriminate shelling and severe
> destruction in residential areas of Tskhinvali.
> **********************
>
> Cite?
> (That's a term we use around here when we suspect some Irishman is having
> us
> on)
>
> ***********************
> Secondly the majority of people in South Ossetia have Russian
> passports therefore Russian citizens.
>
> "Please do not test the Georgian state's patience… Let's give peace
> and dialogue a chance."
>
> Saakashvili - Less than six hours before he ordered a grad rocket
> attack on Russian civilians.
>
>
>
> > 2) This wasn't an 'intervention'; it was a planned invasion.
>
> Really then supply your evidence for that.
> ***********************
>
> "Human Rights Watches" perhaps?

Then show me where "Human Rights Watch" claims Russian planned an
invasion?

Its a tad ironic for somebody who picks out typo or spelling errors to
actuall make some themselves don't you think. Maybe we should ask
"Human Rights Watches". What dictionary do you use?

**************************

Actually it was neither typos nor spelling errors I commented on.
Oh no but it was your use of the word "clearly", twice in succession when
there are so many acceptable alternatives.
And the "Human Rights Watches" was a poke at your use of "Human Rights
Watch" to bolster your dubious claims.
(You are really a Sassenach, aren't you?)

[Fred J. McCall]

freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:On 20 Aug, 15:22, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :On 20 Aug, 14:10, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote::> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :No it doesn't.   For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
:> :> :the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from the
:> :> :potential threat of the USSR.  With the break-up of the USSR NATO has
:> :> :no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what are they
:> :> :doing?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
:> :> important, you silly twat.
:> :
:> :So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
:> :on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
:> :
:>
:> No, the voices in your head are telling you that.
:>
:> I'm telling you:
:>
:> 1) There was no 'genocide of its citizens'.
:
:The facts simply do not support that. First a grad rocket attack on a
:civilian city is not only genocide, a crime against humanity but a
:breach of the Geneva convention. Human Rights Watch have agreed that
:Georgia was involved in the indiscriminate shelling and severe
:destruction in residential areas of Tskhinvali.
:

Hint: Buy a dictionary. Look up 'genocide'. I don't think that word
means what you think it means...

:
:Secondly the majority of people in South Ossetia have Russian
:passports therefore Russian citizens.
:

So what? Certainly after Russian troops run out everyone who DOESN'T
have a Russian passport this is true.

<snip>

:>
:> 2) This wasn't an 'intervention'; it was a planned invasion.
:
:Really then supply your evidence for that.
:

Common sense. Ask yourself, is it usual for Russia to have that big a
chunk of their military just milling about near Georgia?

:
:>
:> 3) They don't seem in any hurry to leave.
:
:Why should they be? If Russia do withdraw by the weekend as they
:claim I would think that would be a very quick withdrawal.
:

If they can get that many troops in there that fast without prior
intention and against opposition, they ought to be able to withdraw
back to the area the cease fire gives them in about 20 minutes.

:
:>
:> 4) They're going about doing 'ethnic cleansing' by demolishing any
:> home or village that is actually Georgian.
:
:You mean like Gori which was reported to have been destroyed and a
:market place which had two 500lbs dropped on it. However this actually
:turned out to be false.
:

No, I mean the blowing up and bulldozing of housing belonging to
Georgians as witnessed and documented by pretty much everyone.

:According to video footage taken by the BBC its actually looters that
:Georgian civilians are saying are the problem.
:

Yes. Russian troops are looting. This is a problem.

:
:>
:> 5) They're ignoring even the weak agreement that they signed.
:
:The agreement was undermined when Georgia signed an different document
:from everyone else!
:

Cite?

:>
:> 6) Think Germany and the Sudentenland...
:>
:
:Yes I am thinking of Saakashvili's father and do note that Georgian
:forces fought on the side of Nazi Germany.
:
:As for Sudentenland tell me how many bombs fell on Georgia's capital
:or when the Georgian government was overthrown?
:

I see. So you're not thinking at all.

Never mind, then.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[freeireland]

On 21 Aug, 03:36, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On 20 Aug, 15:22, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote::> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>
> :> :On 20 Aug, 14:10, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote::> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :No it doesn't.   For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
> :> :> :the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from the
> :> :> :potential threat of the USSR.  With the break-up of the USSR NATO has
> :> :> :no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what are they
> :> :> :doing?
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
> :> :> important, you silly twat.
> :> :
> :> :So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
> :> :on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
> :> :
> :>
> :> No, the voices in your head are telling you that.
> :>
> :> I'm telling you:
> :>
> :> 1) There was no 'genocide of its citizens'.
> :
> :The facts simply do not support that. First a grad rocket attack on a
> :civilian city is not only genocide, a crime against humanity but a
> :breach of the Geneva convention.  Human Rights Watch have agreed that
> :Georgia was involved in the indiscriminate shelling and severe
> :destruction in residential areas of Tskhinvali.
> :
>
> Hint:  Buy a dictionary.  Look up 'genocide'.  I don't think that word
> means what you think it means...

I have already quoted the UN charters

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the
group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group."

"Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide" which was "Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United
Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948."


Attacking the ethic group know as South Ossetians indiscriminately is
genocide according to the UNs conventions on Genocide.

>
> :
> :Secondly the majority of people in South Ossetia have Russian
> :passports therefore Russian citizens.
> :
>
> So what?  Certainly after Russian troops run out everyone who DOESN'T
> have a Russian passport this is true.

Why have you not mentioned the Georgians running out the South
Ossetian Russian citizens?

Secondly the majority of the population both Ossetian and Georgian
held Russian passports before this conflict began.



>
> <snip>
>
> :>
> :> 2) This wasn't an 'intervention'; it was a planned invasion.
> :
> :Really then supply your evidence for that.
> :
>
> Common sense.  Ask yourself, is it usual for Russia to have that big a
> chunk of their military just milling about near Georgia?


Why because Vladikavkaz just 60-70 miles as the crow flies from
Tskhinvali is one of Russias largest military bases. In-fact
Vladikavkaz was built around a military base due to its key strategic
position since the Ottoman conflicts in the region. (When North
Ossetia requested to join the Russian Empire, Georgia also petitioned
for Russian protection from this military position) The region in the
90s and onwards inside Russia has been very unstable and has always
had a huge military presence since the Ossetion-Ingush conflict in the
90's. The region has had many disputes with Ingush, Ossetians and
Chechen. Vladikavkaz airport is actually in Beslan and everyone
remembers what happened there. Shops in Vladikavkaz and the market
places all have security staff searching bags and persons entering
each shop. Its reminded me of Belfast in the eighties. The reality is
the reason the Russians where able to respond to the Georgians was
they where already and always have had a huge military presence in the
region.

So the answer to your question is yes, this is the most unstable
region in Russia and traditionally Vladikavkaz only 3-4 hours drive
from Tskhinvali.

Maybe you should establish facts before using your common sense.


>
> :
> :>
> :> 3) They don't seem in any hurry to leave.
> :
> :Why should they be?  If Russia do withdraw by the weekend as they
> :claim I would think that would be a very quick withdrawal.
> :
>
> If they can get that many troops in there that fast without prior
> intention and against opposition, they ought to be able to withdraw
> back to the area the cease fire gives them in about 20 minutes.

Sometimes withdrawi


>
> :
> :>
> :> 4) They're going about doing 'ethnic cleansing' by demolishing any
> :> home or village that is actually Georgian.
> :
> :You mean like Gori which was reported to have been destroyed and a
> :market place which had two 500lbs dropped on it. However this actually
> :turned out to be false.
> :
>
> No, I mean the blowing up and bulldozing of housing belonging to
> Georgians as witnessed and documented by pretty much everyone.

Cite your evidence and who is everyone?


>
> :According to video footage taken by the BBC its actually looters that
> :Georgian civilians are saying are the problem.
> :
>
> Yes.  Russian troops are looting.  This is a problem.

South Ossetian looters are not Russian soldiers.

Cite.


>
> :
> :>
> :> 5) They're ignoring even the weak agreement that they signed.
> :
> :The agreement was undermined when Georgia signed an different document
> :from everyone else!
> :
>
> Cite?

"The fact that Mr Saakashvili signed a modified version of the
agreement and that attempts to get a UN Security Council resolution
signed have been torpedoed - all of this indicates that it is not NATO
countries telling Mr Saakashvili what he should do to meet high NATO
standards; it's Mr Saakashvili telling developed democracies such as
NATO countries what they should do to satisfy his ambitions".

- Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov


I can provide more if you really need them.

>
> :>
> :> 6) Think Germany and the Sudentenland...
> :>
> :
> :Yes I am thinking of Saakashvili's father and do note that Georgian
> :forces fought on the side of Nazi Germany.
> :
> :As for Sudentenland tell me how many bombs fell on Georgia's capital
> :or when the Georgian government was overthrown?
> :
>
> I see.  So you're not thinking at all.
>
> Never mind, then.


Then what is your point?

>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:On 21 Aug, 03:36, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :On 20 Aug, 15:22, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote::> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :>
:> :> :On 20 Aug, 14:10, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote::> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :No it doesn't.   For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
:> :> :> :the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from the
:> :> :> :potential threat of the USSR.  With the break-up of the USSR NATO has
:> :> :> :no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what are they
:> :> :> :doing?
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
:> :> :> important, you silly twat.
:> :> :
:> :> :So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
:> :> :on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> No, the voices in your head are telling you that.
:> :>
:> :> I'm telling you:
:> :>
:> :> 1) There was no 'genocide of its citizens'.
:> :
:> :The facts simply do not support that. First a grad rocket attack on a
:> :civilian city is not only genocide, a crime against humanity but a
:> :breach of the Geneva convention.  Human Rights Watch have agreed that
:> :Georgia was involved in the indiscriminate shelling and severe
:> :destruction in residential areas of Tskhinvali.
:> :
:>
:> Hint:  Buy a dictionary.  Look up 'genocide'.  I don't think that word
:> means what you think it means...
:
:I have already quoted the UN charters
:
:"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
:committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
:ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the
:group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
:group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
:calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
:part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
:group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another
:group."
:
: "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
:Genocide" which was "Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United
:Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948."
:
:
:Attacking the ethic group know as South Ossetians indiscriminately is
:genocide according to the UNs conventions on Genocide.
:

Nope. You have a definition. Have someone explain what the words
mean to you.

:>
:> :
:> :Secondly the majority of people in South Ossetia have Russian
:> :passports therefore Russian citizens.
:> :
:>
:> So what?  Certainly after Russian troops run out everyone who DOESN'T
:> have a Russian passport this is true.
:
:Why have you not mentioned the Georgians running out the South
:Ossetian Russian citizens?
:

Because that's not what's currently happening.

:
:Secondly the majority of the population both Ossetian and Georgian
:held Russian passports before this conflict began.
:

You say this as if it means something. It doesn't.

:
:>
:> <snip>
:>
:> :>
:> :> 2) This wasn't an 'intervention'; it was a planned invasion.
:> :
:> :Really then supply your evidence for that.
:> :
:>
:> Common sense.  Ask yourself, is it usual for Russia to have that big a
:> chunk of their military just milling about near Georgia?
:
:
:Why because Vladikavkaz just 60-70 miles as the crow flies from
:Tskhinvali is one of Russias largest military bases. In-fact
:Vladikavkaz was built around a military base due to its key strategic
:position since the Ottoman conflicts in the region. (When North
:Ossetia requested to join the Russian Empire, Georgia also petitioned
:for Russian protection from this military position) The region in the
:90s and onwards inside Russia has been very unstable and has always
:had a huge military presence since the Ossetion-Ingush conflict in the
:90's. The region has had many disputes with Ingush, Ossetians and
:Chechen. Vladikavkaz airport is actually in Beslan and everyone
:remembers what happened there. Shops in Vladikavkaz and the market
:places all have security staff searching bags and persons entering
:each shop. Its reminded me of Belfast in the eighties. The reality is
:the reason the Russians where able to respond to the Georgians was
:they where already and always have had a huge military presence in the
:region.
:
:So the answer to your question is yes, this is the most unstable
:region in Russia and traditionally Vladikavkaz only 3-4 hours drive
:from Tskhinvali.
:
:Maybe you should establish facts before using your common sense.
:

Maybe you should learn something before you wank on about silly
irrelevancies?

It doesn't matter that there's a "big base" nearby. Large scale troop
movements into contested territory take a bit of time to plan. All
that nasty logistics support and all that.

As I said, if they can wave a wand and have that many troops invade on
zero notice, they ought to be able to withdraw in about 20 minutes.

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> 3) They don't seem in any hurry to leave.
:> :
:> :Why should they be?  If Russia do withdraw by the weekend as they
:> :claim I would think that would be a very quick withdrawal.
:> :
:>
:> If they can get that many troops in there that fast without prior
:> intention and against opposition, they ought to be able to withdraw
:> back to the area the cease fire gives them in about 20 minutes.
:
:Sometimes withdrawi
:

"Sometimes withdrawi", indeed....

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> 4) They're going about doing 'ethnic cleansing' by demolishing any
:> :> home or village that is actually Georgian.
:> :
:> :You mean like Gori which was reported to have been destroyed and a
:> :market place which had two 500lbs dropped on it. However this actually
:> :turned out to be false.
:> :
:>
:> No, I mean the blowing up and bulldozing of housing belonging to
:> Georgians as witnessed and documented by pretty much everyone.
:
:Cite your evidence and who is everyone?
:

NPR and anyone actually there who isn't under the thumb of the
Russians.

:
:>
:> :According to video footage taken by the BBC its actually looters that
:> :Georgian civilians are saying are the problem.
:> :
:>
:> Yes.  Russian troops are looting.  This is a problem.
:
: South Ossetian looters are not Russian soldiers.
:

Russian troops are looting.

:
:Cite.
:

See above.

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> 5) They're ignoring even the weak agreement that they signed.
:> :
:> :The agreement was undermined when Georgia signed an different document
:> :from everyone else!
:> :
:>
:> Cite?
:
:"The fact that Mr Saakashvili signed a modified version of the
:agreement and that attempts to get a UN Security Council resolution
:signed have been torpedoed - all of this indicates that it is not NATO
:countries telling Mr Saakashvili what he should do to meet high NATO
:standards; it's Mr Saakashvili telling developed democracies such as
:NATO countries what they should do to satisfy his ambitions".
:
:- Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
:

You claiming a quote is not a 'cite'.

:
:I can provide more if you really need them.
:
:>
:> :>
:> :> 6) Think Germany and the Sudentenland...
:> :>
:> :
:> :Yes I am thinking of Saakashvili's father and do note that Georgian
:> :forces fought on the side of Nazi Germany.
:> :
:> :As for Sudentenland tell me how many bombs fell on Georgia's capital
:> :or when the Georgian government was overthrown?
:> :
:>
:> I see.  So you're not thinking at all.
:>
:> Never mind, then.
:
:
:Then what is your point?
:

That you're a bloody unthinking loon.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[d***@aol.com]

<snippage>

Okay, so according to "freeireland", any attack by one ethnic
group upon another is genocide. I guess when the Palestinians lob
rockets into Israel, they're committing "genocide"?

Also, anyone who thinks you can throw together an invasion like
this on the spur of the moment doesn't have a clue. I think the
Georgians bit on Russian bait and tried to reclaim S
Ossetia.....whether the Russian intel picked up on it or the Russians
provoked it doesn't matter. The Russians were ready and waiting.

Now, claiming that S Ossetians are Russian citizens is kind of
strange. Unless Georgia agreed to this....but I'm thinking the
Russians did this unilaterally. What's to stop any nation from issuing
passports to anyone in another nation and claiming that they're
citizens?

[freeireland]

On 21 Aug, 15:50, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>     <snippage>
>
>        Okay, so according to "freeireland", any attack by one ethnic
> group upon another is genocide. I guess when the Palestinians lob
> rockets into Israel, they're committing "genocide"?

Attacking a civilian population indiscriminately is genocide no matter
if it happens in Israel or Palestine.

>
>        Also, anyone who thinks you can throw together an invasion like
> this on the spur of the moment doesn't have a clue. I think the
> Georgians bit on Russian bait and tried to reclaim S
> Ossetia.....whether the Russian intel picked up on it or the Russians
> provoked it doesn't matter. The Russians were ready and waiting.


Again nonsense. You have no evidence of this. An assault like this is
possible if your forces are already active in the region. The speed of
the assault was vital to avoid Georgians taking the South Ossetian end
of the Roki tunnel blocking of any advance and destroying key
bridges. The reality is Russia always have a military presence in
that region ready to deal with any Chechen, Ingush or Ossetian. I am
surprised it took the Russians a full day to respond as they could
have responded much quicker as those forces in the region are always
on high alert.

Though if you assume what you claim then you also must assume that a
certain President must have been planning an assault against a
civilian population with heavy artillery and air-strikes even when he
was calling a ceasefire only five and a half hours before the assault
on South Ossetia. This assault was aimed to coincide with the start of
a certain sporting event which is internationally recognised as a time
of truce hoping to catch the Russians of guard.

>
>        Now, claiming that S Ossetians are Russian citizens is kind of
> strange. Unless Georgia agreed to this....but I'm thinking the
> Russians did this unilaterally. What's to stop any nation from issuing
> passports to anyone in another nation and claiming that they're
> citizens?

Again Georgia accepts dual citizenship like many other countries
including Russia. Georgia has no right or power to stop Russia
issuing passports to whoever it likes. Its for Georgia to determine
the constraints for its citizenship not any other. Realistically
Georgia did not legislate against this as Russia gave Russian passport
holders in Georgia pensions and Georgians with Russian passports could
freely work in Russia sending back money which is estimated to be
about 20% of Georgia's economy.

[d***@aol.com]

On Aug 21, 11:22 am, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Aug, 15:50, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >     <snippage>
>
> >        Okay, so according to "freeireland", any attack by one ethnic
> > group upon another is genocide. I guess when the Palestinians lob
> > rockets into Israel, they're committing "genocide"?
>
> Attacking a civilian population indiscriminately is genocide no matter
> if it happens in Israel or Palestine.


Okay, at least you evenly apply your definition. I can
live with that.
>
>
>
> >        Also, anyone who thinks you can throw together an invasion like
> > this on the spur of the moment doesn't have a clue. I think the
> > Georgians bit on Russian bait and tried to reclaim S
> > Ossetia.....whether the Russian intel picked up on it or the Russians
> > provoked it doesn't matter. The Russians were ready and waiting.
>
> Again nonsense. You have no evidence of this. An assault like this is
> possible if your forces are already active in the region. The speed of
> the assault was vital to avoid Georgians taking the South Ossetian end
> of the Roki tunnel blocking of any advance and destroying key
> bridges.    The reality is Russia always have a military presence in
> that region ready to deal with any Chechen, Ingush or Ossetian. I am
> surprised it took the Russians a full day to respond as they could
> have responded much quicker as those forces in the region are always
> on high alert.

This seems to be a bit more than ready forces just jumping in
with what they've got. The logistical train on amn operation of this
scale is immense. i could be wrong, but i doubt it.

>
> Though if you assume what you claim then you also must assume that a
> certain President must have been planning an assault against a
> civilian population with heavy artillery and air-strikes even when he
> was calling a ceasefire only five and a half hours before the assault
> on South Ossetia. This assault was aimed to coincide with the start of
> a certain sporting event which is internationally recognised as a time
> of truce hoping to catch the Russians of guard.

Of course the Georgians planned their attempt to take
back S. Ossetia. I don't think the Georgians are innocent in this, I
just think the Russians set them up. Even though you throw bait in the
water, the fish doesn't have to strike it......

>
>
>
> >        Now, claiming that S Ossetians are Russian citizens is kind of
> > strange. Unless Georgia agreed to this....but I'm thinking the
> > Russians did this unilaterally. What's to stop any nation from issuing
> > passports to anyone in another nation and claiming that they're
> > citizens?
>
> Again Georgia accepts dual citizenship like many other countries
> including Russia.  Georgia has no right or power to stop Russia
> issuing passports to whoever it likes.  Its for Georgia to determine
> the constraints for its citizenship not any other.  Realistically
> Georgia did not legislate against this as Russia gave Russian passport
> holders in Georgia pensions and Georgians with Russian passports could
> freely work in Russia sending back money which is estimated to be
> about 20% of Georgia's economy.


Any nation has the right to issue citizenship to whomever it
pleases.....I just think it's an interesting twist on the
idea.....pretty much everyone agrees a nation has the right to defend
its citizenry....this can be used as an excuse for aggression (not
saying that happened here)

The pension issue is an interesting one that's not well-
publicized over here. All of the other things you are claiming about
the situation have been covered by the US media

[conwaycaine]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b328311-ef8d-4994-9f17-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 20 Aug, 14:10, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :No it doesn't. For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
> :the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from the
> :potential threat of the USSR. With the break-up of the USSR NATO has
> :no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what are they
> :doing?
> :
>
> Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
> important, you silly twat.


So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?

*********
"genocide"
Irish hyperbole yet again???

[Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.]

conwaycaine wrote:
> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1b328311-ef8d-4994-9f17-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 20 Aug, 14:10, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
>>> the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from
>>> the potential threat of the USSR. With the break-up of the USSR
>>> NATO has no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what
>>> are they doing?
>>>
>>
>> Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
>> important, you silly twat.
>
>
> So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
> on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?

Russia is a bully! NATO has got to be there! To protect us all, eventually.
As for genocide, fact is, Russia has been funding terrorists to attack
Georgia for years! Hardly any wonder Georgia attacked back, wrong move that
it was. Strange, wasn't it, the speed of the Russian invasion. They were
waiting, all prepared, for their bullyboy tactics to work.

>
> *********
> "genocide"
> Irish hyperbole yet again???

"Genocide"?? What genocide?

--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).

[Feck all sassanaigh]

On Aug 20, 10:05 pm, "Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> conwaycaine wrote:
> > "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1b328311-ef8d-4994-9f17-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On 20 Aug, 14:10, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> No it doesn't. For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
> >>> the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from
> >>> the potential threat of the USSR. With the break-up of the USSR
> >>> NATO has no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what
> >>> are they doing?
>
> >> Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
> >> important, you silly twat.
>
> > So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
> > on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
>
> Russia is a bully! NATO has got to be there! To protect us all, eventually.
> As for genocide, fact is, Russia has been funding terrorists to attack
> Georgia for years! Hardly any wonder Georgia attacked back, wrong move that
> it was. Strange, wasn't it, the speed of the Russian invasion. They were
> waiting, all prepared, for their bullyboy tactics to work.
>
>
>
> > *********
> > "genocide"
> > Irish hyperbole yet again???
>
> "Genocide"?? What genocide?
>
> --
> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
>
> (Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Merry Dick

Just come the revolution! Parasites, planters, piss-artists,
paedophiles, perverts ......

We will sort them out.

Feck

[freeireland]

On 20 Aug, 22:05, "Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> conwaycaine wrote:
> > "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1b328311-ef8d-4994-9f17-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On 20 Aug, 14:10, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> No it doesn't. For example the disputes in Georgia have not led to
> >>> the break-up of Georgia. The point of NATO was protect Europe from
> >>> the potential threat of the USSR. With the break-up of the USSR
> >>> NATO has no reason to exist. There is no threat to Europe so what
> >>> are they doing?
>
> >> Russia just gave a brilliant demonstration of why NATO is still
> >> important, you silly twat.
>
> > So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
> > on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
>
> Russia is a bully! NATO has got to be there! To protect us all, eventually.

Russia like any nation has a right to defend its citizens. It at
least had some reason to enter Georgia as some of its citizens where
under military bombardment. Surely the primary role of any government
or military is to defend its citizens.

Russias actions are certainly more defendable than the US/UK invasion
of Iraq or the NATO invasion of Afghanistan.


> As for genocide, fact is, Russia has been funding terrorists to attack
> Georgia for years!

Cite your evidence for this!

>Hardly any wonder Georgia attacked back, wrong move that
> it was.

The reality is they did not attack terrorists they attacked a civilian
population.

>Strange, wasn't it, the speed of the Russian invasion. They were
> waiting, all prepared, for their bullyboy tactics to work.


Again rubbish, Vladikavkaz just a few hours away has always had a huge
Russian military presence as I have explained in greater detail in
another post.

>
>
>
> > *********
> > "genocide"
> > Irish hyperbole yet again???
>
> "Genocide"?? What genocide?

In the present UN Charter according to the genocide Convention,
genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c)
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.


this was the aim of Georgia in Tskhinvali, that's why grad rockets
attacks targeted the civilian population.

>
> --
> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
>
> (Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).

[Falcon]

freeireland wrote:

[...]
> In the present UN Charter according to the genocide Convention,
> genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to
> destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
> religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing
> serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c)
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
> bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing
> measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
> transferring children of the group to another group.
>
> this was the aim of Georgia in Tskhinvali, that's why grad rockets
> attacks targeted the civilian population.

Was genocide the aim of the Palestinians in Gaza who fired them at Ashkelon?
Or was that self-defence? I'm just trying to ascertain where you stand on my
double-standards meter.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
---------------------------------

[Westprog]

Falcon wrote:
...
> Was genocide the aim of the Palestinians in Gaza who fired them at
> Ashkelon? Or was that self-defence? I'm just trying to ascertain
> where you stand on my double-standards meter.

There were undoubtedly civilians killed by Georgian forces in South Ossetia.
There were also civilians killed by South Ossetia militia, who seem to be a
particularly unpleasant bunch. There are Georgians fleeing South Ossetia in
the other direction. The one thing we can be sure of is that total
casualties are a tiny fraction of Chechnya, whose seperatist ambitions
remain unfullfilled.

Naturally it's all the fault of George Bush, somehow.

[Salahoona]

On Aug 21, 3:42 pm, "Westprog" <***@hottmail.com> wrote:
> Falcon wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Was genocide the aim of the Palestinians in Gaza who fired them at
> > Ashkelon? Or was that self-defence? I'm just trying to ascertain
> > where you stand on my double-standards meter.
>
> There were undoubtedly civilians killed by Georgian forces in South Ossetia.
> There were also civilians killed by South Ossetia militia, who seem to be a
> particularly unpleasant bunch. There are Georgians fleeing South Ossetia in
> the other direction. The one thing we can be sure of is that total
> casualties are a tiny fraction of Chechnya, whose seperatist ambitions
> remain unfullfilled.
>
> Naturally it's all the fault of George Bush, somehow.

Oh for fuck's sake war is bloody awful. Will youse have to learn all
over again - is there a difference between knowing and experience?
Will we wake up in 2018? Russia is a European Country, America is not.

Donal

[freeireland]

On 21 Aug, 15:42, "Westprog" <***@hottmail.com> wrote:
> Falcon wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Was genocide the aim of the Palestinians in Gaza who fired them at
> > Ashkelon? Or was that self-defence? I'm just trying to ascertain
> > where you stand on my double-standards meter.
>
> There were undoubtedly civilians killed by Georgian forces in South Ossetia.
> There were also civilians killed by South Ossetia militia, who seem to be a
> particularly unpleasant bunch. There are Georgians fleeing South Ossetia in
> the other direction. The one thing we can be sure of is that total
> casualties are a tiny fraction of Chechnya, whose seperatist ambitions
> remain unfullfilled.
>
> Naturally it's all the fault of George Bush, somehow.

Again even Chechnya pales in comparison to the death in destruction in
Iraq. I have always been pro Chechen independance. However can you
explain why the Chechens have been quite for the last few years.

Maybe you can explain why the pro Russian president is actually
popular in Chechnya. Moscow has invested in unprecedented levels in
Grozny with 5 star hotels and entertainment complexes to be built in
order to attract tourists next year. The recent war in Georgia found
ex Chechen rebels crossing the mountains to join in arms with South
Ossetians. The mood in Chechnya is no longer the problem, however the
real concern inside Russia's borders in that resgion is that of the
Ingush. Its not as simple as a nation or republic wanting to break
away. The majority of the Ingush nation, where moved to Siberia for
collaborating with the Nazis in WWII leaving part of their republic
the Prigorodny District being settled by the Ossetians. In 1957 the
Ingush where allowed to return however the Prigorodny District was no
longer part of their republic. This has led to Ossetian-Ingush
tensions relating to the Prigorodny District and is the prime reason
for conflict and a large Russian military presence in the region.
While Ingushetia has issues with Ossetia and the Chechens it has not
declared independance from Russia or any indication of doing so.

[freeireland]

On 21 Aug, 15:28, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > In the present UN Charter according to the genocide Convention,
> > genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to
> > destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
> > religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing
> > serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c)
> > Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
> > bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing
> > measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
> > transferring children of the group to another group.
>
> > this was the aim of Georgia in Tskhinvali, that's why grad rockets
> > attacks targeted the civilian population.
>
> Was genocide the aim of the Palestinians in Gaza who fired them at Ashkelon?

Its clear in this case case the group who fired those rockets was
trying to intimidate and kill civilians of a Jewish persuasion. Yes
that is genocide. However Israel are guilty of genocide on a much
larger scale. For example bulldozing homes and forcing people to
relocate. Sniper fire at civilians from secure positions. Collective
punishment and polices such as scorched earth which denies civilians
basic resources such as fuel, water and electricity,

Though is is a different conflict and region with different issues and
problems.


> Or was that self-defence? I'm just trying to ascertain where you stand on my
> double-standards meter.

The real double standard from NATO in the Georgia issue however has
been the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state and the
complete indifference to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

They have been operating independent from Georgia since the early 90s
and this recent conflict has without doubt made it impossible for
these two states to exist inside Georgia peacefully. They have little
strategic importance (the Roki tunnel) and little natural resources.
They do not have any impact on the gas pipeline running through south
Georgia.

>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> ---------------------------------

[Falcon]

freeireland wrote:

> On 21 Aug, 15:28, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>> freeireland wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> In the present UN Charter according to the genocide Convention,
>>> genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to
>>> destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
>>> religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing
>>> serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c)
>>> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
>>> bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing
>>> measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
>>> transferring children of the group to another group.
>>
>>> this was the aim of Georgia in Tskhinvali, that's why grad rockets
>>> attacks targeted the civilian population.
>>
>> Was genocide the aim of the Palestinians in Gaza who fired them at
>> Ashkelon?
>
> Its clear in this case case the group who fired those rockets was
> trying to intimidate and kill civilians of a Jewish persuasion. Yes
> that is genocide. However Israel are guilty of genocide on a much
> larger scale. For example bulldozing homes and forcing people to
> relocate. Sniper fire at civilians from secure positions. Collective
> punishment and polices such as scorched earth which denies civilians
> basic resources such as fuel, water and electricity,

Ah, I see. There's a hierarchy of genocide.
Cool.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
---------------------------------

[Cory Bhreckan]

Falcon wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
>
>> On 21 Aug, 15:28, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>>> freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> In the present UN Charter according to the genocide Convention,
>>>> genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to
>>>> destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
>>>> religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing
>>>> serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c)
>>>> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
>>>> bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing
>>>> measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
>>>> transferring children of the group to another group.
>>>> this was the aim of Georgia in Tskhinvali, that's why grad rockets
>>>> attacks targeted the civilian population.
>>> Was genocide the aim of the Palestinians in Gaza who fired them at
>>> Ashkelon?
>> Its clear in this case case the group who fired those rockets was
>> trying to intimidate and kill civilians of a Jewish persuasion. Yes
>> that is genocide. However Israel are guilty of genocide on a much
>> larger scale. For example bulldozing homes and forcing people to
>> relocate. Sniper fire at civilians from secure positions. Collective
>> punishment and polices such as scorched earth which denies civilians
>> basic resources such as fuel, water and electricity,
>
> Ah, I see. There's a hierarchy of genocide.
> Cool.
>

This is not your father's genocide.

--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall

[freeireland]

On 21 Aug, 19:33, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 21 Aug, 15:28, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> freeireland wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> In the present UN Charter according to the genocide Convention,
> >>> genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to
> >>> destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
> >>> religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing
> >>> serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c)
> >>> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
> >>> bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing
> >>> measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
> >>> transferring children of the group to another group.
>
> >>> this was the aim of Georgia in Tskhinvali, that's why grad rockets
> >>> attacks targeted the civilian population.
>
> >> Was genocide the aim of the Palestinians in Gaza who fired them at
> >> Ashkelon?
>
> > Its clear in this case case the group who fired those rockets was
> > trying to intimidate and kill civilians of a Jewish persuasion. Yes
> > that is genocide.  However Israel are guilty of genocide on a much
> > larger scale. For example bulldozing homes and forcing people to
> > relocate. Sniper fire at civilians from secure positions. Collective
> > punishment and polices such as scorched earth which denies civilians
> > basic resources such as fuel, water and electricity,
>
> Ah, I see. There's a hierarchy of genocide.
> Cool.
>

Not at all and I have suggested no such thing. Just Genocide on a
larger scale. The genocide in regards to Jews by the Nazis again would
be on a larger scale again. This is no way justifies any or condemns
any to a lesser or greater degree.



> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> ---------------------------------

[Fred J. McCall]

"Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:

:
:freeireland wrote:
:
:<silliness elided>
:
:Ah, I see. There's a hierarchy of genocide.
:Cool.
:

There would almost have to be, given how he misdefines the word.

I'll just note that, by his definition, the IRA was committing
genocide against the English...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

[freeireland]

On 22 Aug, 01:18, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> ::freeireland wrote:
>
> :
> :<silliness elided>
> :
> :Ah, I see. There's a hierarchy of genocide.
> :Cool.
> :
>
> There would almost have to be, given how he misdefines the word.
>
> I'll just note that, by his definition, the IRA was committing
> genocide against the English...

I have not defined it but used the definition pointed to by the UN
Charter.

Ireland is the prime example of Bristish genocide.


>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

[Fred J. McCall]

freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:On 22 Aug, 01:18, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
:>
:> ::freeireland wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :<silliness elided>
:> :
:> :Ah, I see. There's a hierarchy of genocide.
:> :Cool.
:> :
:>
:> There would almost have to be, given how he misdefines the word.
:>
:> I'll just note that, by his definition, the IRA was committing
:> genocide against the English...
:
:I have not defined it but used the definition pointed to by the UN
:Charter.
:
:Ireland is the prime example of Bristish genocide.
:

How do you figure that? By your usage it would be the other way
around. After all, it was the IRA that was deliberately killing
civilians...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

[conwaycaine]

"Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> conwaycaine wrote:
>> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<Snip>
>> So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its citizens
>> on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
>
> Russia is a bully! NATO has got to be there! To protect us all,
> eventually. As for genocide, fact is, Russia has been funding terrorists
> to attack Georgia for years! Hardly any wonder Georgia attacked back,
> wrong move that it was. Strange, wasn't it, the speed of the Russian
> invasion. They were waiting, all prepared, for their bullyboy tactics to
> work.
>
>>
>> *********
>> "genocide"
>> Irish hyperbole yet again???
>
> "Genocide"?? What genocide?

The one our dear freeireland has been claiming.
The one where tiny Georgia is setting out to exterminate the whole of
Russia.

[Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.]

conwaycaine wrote:
> "Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>> conwaycaine wrote:
>>> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> <Snip>
>>> So your telling me Russia intervening in the genocide of its
>>> citizens on its borders is a valid reason for NATO?
>>
>> Russia is a bully! NATO has got to be there! To protect us all,
>> eventually. As for genocide, fact is, Russia has been funding
>> terrorists to attack Georgia for years! Hardly any wonder Georgia
>> attacked back, wrong move that it was. Strange, wasn't it, the speed
>> of the Russian invasion. They were waiting, all prepared, for their
>> bullyboy tactics to work.
>>
>>>
>>> *********
>>> "genocide"
>>> Irish hyperbole yet again???
>>
>> "Genocide"?? What genocide?
>
> The one our dear freeireland has been claiming.
> The one where tiny Georgia is setting out to exterminate the whole of
> Russia.

Oh, I see!!! ROTFLAMAO!

--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).

[conwaycaine]

"Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> conwaycaine wrote:
<Snip>

>>>> *********
>>>> "genocide"
>>>> Irish hyperbole yet again???
>>>
>>> "Genocide"?? What genocide?
>>
>> The one our dear freeireland has been claiming.
>> The one where tiny Georgia is setting out to exterminate the whole of
>> Russia.
>
> Oh, I see!!! ROTFLAMAO!
>
> --
> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
>
> (Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).


Freeirelander's efforts to present himself as an expert on the ways of the
world only proves the truth of that old proverb.

Ni' dhe'anfach an saol capall ra's d'asal

[Deflectedballs]

On Aug 19, 3:43 pm, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Aug, 12:26, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e376e5ab-4a34-4da3-a4c3-***@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 19 Aug, 08:36, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> > >> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > >> > Secondly I challenge you to quote where I have made the claim "Russia
> > >> > hadn't shown as much bias in it's reporting of the conflict."
>
> > >> Oh, OK. Hard one that. I might have to do some searching. Oh, no wait,
> > >> there it is, silly me, up there. Look, up there where I quoted you.
> > >> Scroll up a bit. Yes there it is:
>
> > > Its a hotmail account which was created with the sole intention of
> > > protecting my identity. Your subtle threat has been exposed and will
> > > have no impact on my posts.
>
> > What threat? Please don't flatter yourself; it can only lead to
> > dissapointment.
>
> > >> "The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian."
>
> > >> Now look, if you're just intent on winding everyone up and you can't be
> > >> serious for five minutes there's no point in going on. You'll deny that
> > >> you accused NATO of breaking up Yugoslavia next.
>
> > > Then go ahead an explain how Russia has shown as much bias.  Russia
> > > has not shown video footage of a bombed city and claimed it was
> > > another. It was the wider western media  covered a claim that Gori
> > > market place was hit with two 500 lb bombs personally eye witnessed by
> > > a certain president when independent UN aid convoys show that to be
> > > incorrect. The BBC also displayed footage of a demonstration in in
> > > Georgia's capital show support for its president yet did not tell us
> > > that demonstrators where paid $50 dollars. They did not show any
> > > footage of Russian demonstrations in Moscow or other cities in Europe.
> > > They give the impression  that Georgia is a democracy when in truth
> > > the elections of last year where extremely controversial from
> > > independent TV stations being closed to the arrests of political
> > > opponents. They have not shown the clear media bias in the US in
> > > regards to the 12 year US/Ossetian/Georgian girl being cut of Fox
> > > news.
>
> > > Now tell me what the Russian media has not covered?
>
> > I'm confused. First you say that Russian media coverage is less biased. I
> > say it is as just biased and provide a link to a Russian media site as
> > evidence. You then ask me to show where you claimed that the Russian media
> > was less biased. Helpful as ever, I reply quoting the line of your post in
> > which you claimed the Russian media was less biased and then you then go on
> > to repeat the claim that Russian media is less biased in its reporting.
>
> I can see you get confused a lot!.
>
> First and foremost as I have already pointed out Georgia fired grad
> rockets into an Ossetian city targeting civilians. When Russia Today
> called this genocide they where quite accurate. I would go even
> further and say its a crime against humanity.  This is a legitimate
> point of view which is quite justified considering Georgias actions,
> the timing of those actions and the destruction shown.
>
> So again I challenge you to show where the Russian bias has been to
> the extend of miss-reporting cities being bombed when they had not.
> The Russian media has given coverage in fairly equal measure to
> outside politicians including those against such as the current
> Ukrainian president.  Tell me how many times you have seen the pro
> Russian Slovakian president on the BBC. How often have you seen the
> South Ossetian president on the BBC? Then tell me how often you have
> seen.
>
>
>
> > Great. I'm pleased that at least you're being consistent, even if you can't
> > remember how. All the arguments are out in the open now, so let's not go
> > over the same ground again; let's act like adults and just agree that we
> > disagree.
>
> > Now could you explain how you think NATO caused the break-up of the former
> > Yugoslavia?
>
> "Surely then the real aggression in Yugoslavia began with the western
> recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. The territorial integrity of a
> state [Yugoslavia] that was voluntarily created and which had existed
> since December 1918 was swept aside. In 1991, new state recognition
> policy proved to be an inventive method of destroying long-standing
> sovereign independent states. When several rich and powerful states
> decide to take a sovereign independent state apart through the policy
> of recognition, how is this state supposed to defend itself? There can
> be no deterrence or defense against this form of destruction."
>
> (Raju Thomas, "Nationalism, Secession and Conflict: Legacies from the
> Former Yugoslavia."
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Falcon:
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> > ------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am with you all the way on the above commentary. Imperialist cancer
and its lackeys however remain difficult objects to face the light of
human truth...

[conwaycaine]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:372a3d1c-52f8-41d0-aed7-***@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Aug, 21:06, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Are you sure Betty Windsor isn't at the bottom of all this?

[Westprog]

Falcon wrote:
...
> Yes yes yes, switch the propaganda chip off for a bit Kevin and stick
> to the fucking point. I'm not disputing all that. The point of my
> interjection was your stupid suggestion that Russia hadn't shown as
> much bias in it's reporting of the conflict. That's bollocks; the
> evidence is that their reporting was totally one sided. Search the
> Russian archives for any hint of balanced reporting, and you won't
> find any. On the other hand I watched three successive interviews on
> BBC News 24 in which the presenters gave the Georgian President and a
> government spokesman and extremely hard time.

I wonder how much coverage there's been in the Russian press about the
ethnic cleansing being carried out of Georgians, or of the very brutal
actions of the militia who kicked this off in the first place. I think I can
guess.

It's not surprising that the coverage in the US and US is more balanced than
in Russia or Georgia. It's what one would expect.

[Falcon]

"Westprog" <***@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:g8ebdt$qje$***@news.datemas.de...
> Falcon wrote:
> ...
>> Yes yes yes, switch the propaganda chip off for a bit Kevin and stick
>> to the fucking point. I'm not disputing all that. The point of my
>> interjection was your stupid suggestion that Russia hadn't shown as
>> much bias in it's reporting of the conflict. That's bollocks; the
>> evidence is that their reporting was totally one sided. Search the
>> Russian archives for any hint of balanced reporting, and you won't
>> find any. On the other hand I watched three successive interviews on
>> BBC News 24 in which the presenters gave the Georgian President and a
>> government spokesman and extremely hard time.
>
> I wonder how much coverage there's been in the Russian press about the
> ethnic cleansing being carried out of Georgians, or of the very brutal
> actions of the militia who kicked this off in the first place. I think I
> can guess.
>
> It's not surprising that the coverage in the US and US is more balanced
> than in Russia or Georgia. It's what one would expect.

After discussing the issue with [redacted], I'm confident that if Russia
Today didn't report either provocation or ethnic cleansing, neither
happened.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
------------------------------

[freeireland]

On 19 Aug, 12:53, "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
> "Westprog" <***@hottmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g8ebdt$qje$***@news.datemas.de...
>
>
>
> > Falcon wrote:
> > ...
> >> Yes yes yes, switch the propaganda chip off for a bit Kevin and stick
> >> to the fucking point. I'm not disputing all that. The point of my
> >> interjection was your stupid suggestion that Russia hadn't shown as
> >> much bias in it's reporting of the conflict. That's bollocks; the
> >> evidence is that their reporting was totally one sided. Search the
> >> Russian archives for any hint of balanced reporting, and you won't
> >> find any. On the other hand I watched three successive interviews on
> >> BBC News 24 in which the presenters gave the Georgian President and a
> >> government spokesman and extremely hard time.
>
> > I wonder how much coverage there's been in the Russian press about the
> > ethnic cleansing being carried out of Georgians, or of the very brutal
> > actions of the militia who kicked this off in the first place. I think I
> > can guess.
>
> > It's not surprising that the coverage in the US and US is more balanced
> > than in Russia or Georgia. It's what one would expect.
>
> After discussing the issue with [redacted], I'm confident that if Russia
> Today didn't report either provocation or ethnic cleansing, neither
> happened.
>

Any accusations made by the western government, Georgia or the media
have been widely shown on Russian national television.

The reality is I clearly identified BBC and CNN reports of bombings
that did not happen. For example the two 500 lb bombs personally
witnessed by the Georgian President on Gori. They have yet to retract
them. The fiasco of Fox News and the disgraceful interview of a 12
year old American/Ossetian girl. No mention of the complete
destruction of the Jewish quarter in Tskhinvali.

Why is it you just cannot admit that media coverage in the west has
not only been biased but misleading?

In-fact the only point you can make is Russia Today has not mentioned
Russian ethnic cleansing in Georgia.

"And what I am saying now, I'm going to say for the first time.
Georgia is a civilised country, but in its history there were times
when it had to sell its children on the Istanbul markets - they were
then taken to Egypt. And it was not only boys, but girls too. Their
mothers tried to convince them how sweet their lives would be there.

When the Russians came, they banned this slavery. And I can't but say
this - that the Russians actually saved Georgia. Why is it, that today
America is the only country who has influence on Georgian politics? Do
they really need to put us at war with Ossetia? It's logically not
right. It was our leaders' decision to do all this aggression. It was
exclusively the decision of the Georgian state. And I believe we made
a mistake, a very serious mistake."

Eduard Shevardnadze previous Georgian president.

> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> ------------------------------

[Fred J. McCall]

Are you Irish or just a Russian shill?

freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:On 18 Aug, 16:32, "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
:> "freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:>
:> news:722793f4-15f8-4211-9f8f-***@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:> > conwaycaine wrote:
:>
:> >> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
:> >>news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
:> >> > Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
:> >> > South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
:> >> > the Merkans world dominian over energy.  What is wrong with bicycles?
:>
:> >> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
:> >> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
:> >> destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis
:> >> on
:> >> Stalingrad.
:>
:> > So are you saying the Georgians did not fire Grad Rockets into a
:> > civilian city?
:>
:> Oh yes, they fired.
:> But the city was not leveled as the Ruskies claimed.
:
:Why have you been there and seen it for yourself?
:
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLaVjN-pLF8
:Thats a CNN report.
:
:
:>
:> > You tell me how many died then?
:>
:> I understand about 40 civilians,
:
:At least 44 bodies where identified at the makeshift morgue in
:Tskhinvali's makeshift hospital as the original hospital was hit. This
:is also a complete and utter misunderstanding of Ossetian culture. For
:example the woman who spent 3 nights in a basement with her dead son
:had friends help bury him in their garden. The number 5 school
:football pitch in Tskhinvali is since the 1992 conflict a graveyard.
:
:Tskhinvali was not the only place to see battle and its also very
:likely that many victims are buried in their basements.
:
:As for lying maybe you should ask Saakasvili how he personally saw two
:500 lb bombs fall in Gori marketplace yet somehow left it unscathed.
:
:Or how footage of the destroyed Gori broadcast on CNN was actually
:footage from Tskhinvali. Infact a UN Aid convey has claimed Gori has
:not suffered much damage at all.
:
:Or why Fox news cut short a young American/Ossetian/Georgian girl's
:interview short as she was clearly saying something they did not
:like, not once but twice. In a 2 minute interview they had two
:commercial breaks.
:
:>
:> > The videos and pictures of Tskhinvali etc are widely avaiable for all
:> > to see.
:>
:> Filmed by the Ruskies?
:> Who, BTW, did their part in inflecting damage.
:> Again, the damage was nowhere near as severe as Stalingrad suffered (as the
:> Ruskies claimed).
:
:
:I have clearly shown footage from a CNN report.
:
:
:>
:> >> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
:> >> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.
:>
:> > You clearly have no idea about Russian intentions. Clearly this is an
:> > attempt by the US once again by proxy to dominate the region.
:>
:> Two "Clearly"'s in a row?
:> You are Irish, for gawd's sake.
:> Write like it.
:
:I'll write as I wish thank you very much.
:
:>
:> > Russia
:> > has been able to negotiate agreements with most of those former USSR
:> > republics and solve most border disputes even those with China. The
:> > only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to gain
:> > influence. Russia has withdrawn miltitary basis from places like Cuba
:> > and Vietnam places of contention , these are hardly the actions of
:> > imperialists. Even then any disputes they do have are along their own
:> > borders. Then take a look at the US and the UK, they have troops
:> > forcably not only trying to dominate their regions but those thousands
:> > of miles away.
:>
:> What can I say?
:> The US has too many people of *nglish descent living here.
:> Those old traits die hard.
:
:The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian.
:Some instances of which I have already pointed out.

[conwaycaine]

"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Are you Irish or just a Russian shill?

He is a stirrer of shi*, Fred.
It is his calling in life.
Clearly it is, clearly it is.

[conwaycaine]

"freeireland" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ee0b4f3-42b9-427d-9f12-***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On 18 Aug, 16:32, "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Oh yes, they fired.
> But the city was not leveled as the Ruskies claimed.

Why have you been there and seen it for yourself?

***********
No but we Americans have these thing-a-mabobs what fly around in space and
take pictures.
We calls them sattilites.
The nearest thing to that you guys have seen is when McMurffle's still blows
its top.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLaVjN-pLF8
Thats a CNN report.
*******
Oh you clever Irishman.
A nice You-tube site but not a word mentioned on the goings on in Georgia.

>
> > You tell me how many died then?
>
> I understand about 40 civilians,

At least 44 bodies where identified at the makeshift morgue in
Tskhinvali's makeshift hospital as the original hospital was hit. This
is also a complete and utter misunderstanding of Ossetian culture. For
example the woman who spent 3 nights in a basement with her dead son
had friends help bury him in their garden. The number 5 school
football pitch in Tskhinvali is since the 1992 conflict a graveyard.
***************

Hardly the genocide the Ruskies claimed.

**********************
Tskhinvali was not the only place to see battle and its also very
likely that many victims are buried in their basements.
As for lying maybe you should ask Saakasvili how he personally saw two
500 lb bombs fall in Gori marketplace yet somehow left it unscathed.
Or how footage of the destroyed Gori broadcast on CNN was actually
footage from Tskhinvali. Infact a UN Aid convey has claimed Gori has
not suffered much damage at all.
Or why Fox news cut short a young American/Ossetian/Georgian girl's
interview short as she was clearly saying something they did not
like, not once but twice. In a 2 minute interview they had two
commercial breaks.
**********************

Anecdotal.
Several international human rights agencies have mentioned that the amount
of damage was grossly exaggerated by the ruskies.
Hardly comparable to the damage done at Stalingrad (as the ruskies claimed).
>
> The videos and pictures of Tskhinvali etc are widely avaiable for all
> > to see.
>
> Filmed by the Ruskies?
> Who, BTW, did their part in inflecting damage.
> Again, the damage was nowhere near as severe as Stalingrad suffered (as
> the
> Ruskies claimed).


I have clearly shown footage from a CNN report.
********
No, you posted a you-tube site that mentioned not once any damage done.

>
> >> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her
> >> region.
> >> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.
>
> > You clearly have no idea about Russian intentions. Clearly this is an
> > attempt by the US once again by proxy to dominate the region.
>
> Two "Clearly"'s in a row?
> You are Irish, for gawd's sake.
> Write like it.

I'll write as I wish thank you very much.
*********

But must you write so poorly?
It reflects on Irishmen everywhere,.


>
> > Russia
> > has been able to negotiate agreements with most of those former USSR
> > republics and solve most border disputes even those with China. The
> > only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to gain
> > influence. Russia has withdrawn miltitary basis from places like Cuba
> > and Vietnam places of contention , these are hardly the actions of
> > imperialists. Even then any disputes they do have are along their own
> > borders. Then take a look at the US and the UK, they have troops
> > forcably not only trying to dominate their regions but those thousands
> > of miles away.
>
> What can I say?
> The US has too many people of *nglish descent living here.
> Those old traits die hard.

The bias in the US/UK press has been much stronger than the Russian.
Some instances of which I have already pointed out.

************

Ah the ruskie press.
Now there's an unbiased source for the news.

[Salahoona]

On Aug 18, 3:51 pm, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> conwaycaine wrote:
> > "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > > Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> > > South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> > > the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
>
> > Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
> > There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
> > destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis on
> > Stalingrad.
>
> So are you saying the Georgians did not fire Grad Rockets into a
> civilian city?
>
> You tell me how many died then?
>
> The videos and pictures of Tskhinvali etc are widely avaiable for all
> to see.
>
> > What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
> > Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.
>
> You clearly have no idea about Russian intentions. Clearly this is an
> attempt by the US once again by proxy to dominate the region. Russia
> has been able to negotiate agreements with most of those former USSR
> republics and solve most border disputes even those with China. The
> only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to gain
> influence. Russia has withdrawn miltitary basis from places like Cuba
> and Vietnam places of contention , these are hardly the actions of
> imperialists. Even then any disputes they do have are along their own
> borders. Then take a look at the US and the UK, they have troops
> forcably not only trying to dominate their regions but those thousands
> of miles away.

You dont need my support in what you say, freeireland, I am far too
old, bitter and foul mouthed; but I could always see the wood from the
trees. Would China allow an Imperial North Atlantic Treaty
Organization establish itself all the way to Valdivistok? Times have
changed in the 21st century and the old British Whore should get off
the stage. She s the last remaining thread of the Imperialist web
which caused the disaster of the first world war.

Donal

[Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.]

Salahoona wrote:
> On Aug 18, 3:51 pm, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> conwaycaine wrote:
>>> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of
>>>> thousands of South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over
>>>> gas pipes....Fuck the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is
>>>> wrong with bicycles?
>>
>>> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
>>> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was
>>> there destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by
>>> the nazis on Stalingrad.
>>
>> So are you saying the Georgians did not fire Grad Rockets into a
>> civilian city?
>>
>> You tell me how many died then?
>>
>> The videos and pictures of Tskhinvali etc are widely avaiable for all
>> to see.
>>
>>> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her
>>> region. Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and
>>> games.
>>
>> You clearly have no idea about Russian intentions. Clearly this is an
>> attempt by the US once again by proxy to dominate the region. Russia
>> has been able to negotiate agreements with most of those former USSR
>> republics and solve most border disputes even those with China. The
>> only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to
>> gain influence. Russia has withdrawn miltitary basis from places
>> like Cuba and Vietnam places of contention , these are hardly the
>> actions of imperialists. Even then any disputes they do have are
>> along their own borders. Then take a look at the US and the UK, they
>> have troops forcably not only trying to dominate their regions but
>> those thousands of miles away.
>
> You dont need my support in what you say, freeireland, I am far too
> old, bitter and foul mouthed; but I could always see the wood from the
> trees. Would China allow an Imperial North Atlantic Treaty
> Organization establish itself all the way to Valdivistok? Times have
> changed in the 21st century and the old British Whore should get off
> the stage. She s the last remaining thread of the Imperialist web
> which caused the disaster of the first world war.
>
> Donal

Your a bitter, mean, sad wee fucker Donal. One cannot help but wonder why
you are still so anti-British. This is an article which should be Socialist
enough for you and yet gives a rough resume of what happened. It also states
that Germany started WW1. One wonders where you got "your" propaganda to
the contrary from? Read:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9112

Was Germany to blame for the First World War?

Who caused the First World War? Revisionist historians argue that the war
had to be fought because Germany was aggressive and militaristic, a "rogue
state" that threatened "the balance of power" and "the peace of Europe".

Some German leaders were certainly preparing for war, and, once it started,
some aimed at a German-dominated continental empire.

But it is equally true that other top Germans were much more cautious,
doubting Germany's ability to win, seeking to avert war and later making
overtures for peace, which were rejected.

Germany's ruling class of 1914-1918 was, in fact, divided. It is not
difficult to understand why. The central issue was how to respond to the
threat posed by the British empire.



So, Britain may have been a "threat", but "didn't" start the war. What
"threat", apart from being there, one still has to find out. Certainly
Britain took advantage of the war, no doubt. But in those times wasn't that
what any country or empire would do? Come on, do!


--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).

[Salahoona]

On Aug 19, 5:36 pm, "Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Salahoona wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 3:51 pm, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> conwaycaine wrote:
> >>> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of
> >>>> thousands of South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over
> >>>> gas pipes....Fuck the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is
> >>>> wrong with bicycles?
>
> >>> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
> >>> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was
> >>> there destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by
> >>> the nazis on Stalingrad.
>
> >> So are you saying the Georgians did not fire Grad Rockets into a
> >> civilian city?
>
> >> You tell me how many died then?
>
> >> The videos and pictures of Tskhinvali etc are widely avaiable for all
> >> to see.
>
> >>> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her
> >>> region. Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and
> >>> games.
>
> >> You clearly have no idea about Russian intentions. Clearly this is an
> >> attempt by the US once again by proxy to dominate the region. Russia
> >> has been able to negotiate agreements with most of those former USSR
> >> republics and solve most border disputes even those with China. The
> >> only regions in dispute are those where the US has been trying to
> >> gain influence. Russia has withdrawn miltitary basis from places
> >> like Cuba and Vietnam places of contention , these are hardly the
> >> actions of imperialists. Even then any disputes they do have are
> >> along their own borders. Then take a look at the US and the UK, they
> >> have troops forcably not only trying to dominate their regions but
> >> those thousands of miles away.
>
> > You dont need my support in what you say, freeireland, I am far too
> > old, bitter and foul mouthed; but I could always see the wood from the
> > trees. Would China allow an Imperial North Atlantic Treaty
> > Organization establish itself all the way to Valdivistok? Times have
> > changed in the 21st century and the old British Whore should get off
> > the stage. She s the last remaining thread of the Imperialist web
> > which caused the disaster of the first world war.
>
> > Donal
>
> Your a bitter, mean, sad wee fucker Donal.

Aye, If only I had know that twenty years ago, Hal, I would have
better learned how to disguise it
.
> One cannot help but wonder why
> you are still so anti-British

You haven't being paying attention.

>. This is an article which should be Socialist
> enough for you and yet gives a rough resume of what happened. It also states
> that Germany started WW1. One wonders where you got "your" propaganda to
> the contrary from? Read:

Well, the notion of 'blame' never enters my head, I just see
'situations". If you put a person in a defined situation, their
actions (behavour) can be predicted with almost, almost, 100%
certainty. People will rush to the flag and kill others. A person,
when part of a mob, will behave irrationally. I have no idea what your
quotation above means. I probably haven't been paying sufficient
attention. Sorry.
>
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9112
>
> Was Germany to blame for the First World War?
>
> Who caused the First World War? Revisionist historians argue that the war
> had to be fought because Germany was aggressive and militaristic, a "rogue
> state" that threatened "the balance of power" and "the peace of Europe".
>
> Some German leaders were certainly preparing for war, and, once it started,
> some aimed at a German-dominated continental empire.
>
> But it is equally true that other top Germans were much more cautious,
> doubting Germany's ability to win, seeking to avert war and later making
> overtures for peace, which were rejected.
>
> Germany's ruling class of 1914-1918 was, in fact, divided. It is not
> difficult to understand why. The central issue was how to respond to the
> threat posed by the British empire.
>
> So, Britain may have been a "threat", but "didn't" start the war. What
> "threat", apart from being there, one still has to find out. Certainly
> Britain took advantage of the war, no doubt. But in those times wasn't that
> what any country or empire would do? Come on, do!

That was also the opinion of Francis Ledwidge, but it is not mine, as
much as I love him.

You don't need conspiracy for people to act in concert. We have to be
very careful with any situation which might explode into war. I don't
know exactly why I feel so bitter with the Brits recently - it may
have something to do with mine own situtation.

Regards,

Donal
>
> --
> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
>
> (Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).

[Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.]

Salahoona wrote:
> On Aug 19, 5:36 pm, "Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Salahoona wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 3:51 pm, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> conwaycaine wrote:
>>>>> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of
>>>>>> thousands of South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over
>>>>>> gas pipes....Fuck the Merkans world dominian over energy. What
>>>>>> is wrong with bicycles?
>>
>>>>> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
>>>>> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was
>>>>> there destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought
>>>>> by the nazis on Stalingrad.
>>
>>>> So are you saying the Georgians did not fire Grad Rockets into a
>>>> civilian city?
>>
>>>> You tell me how many died then?
>>
>>>> The videos and pictures of Tskhinvali etc are widely avaiable for
>>>> all to see.
>>
>>>>> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her
>>>>> region. Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and
>>>>> games.
>>
>>>> You clearly have no idea about Russian intentions. Clearly this is
>>>> an attempt by the US once again by proxy to dominate the region.
>>>> Russia has been able to negotiate agreements with most of those
>>>> former USSR republics and solve most border disputes even those
>>>> with China. The only regions in dispute are those where the US has
>>>> been trying to gain influence. Russia has withdrawn miltitary
>>>> basis from places like Cuba and Vietnam places of contention ,
>>>> these are hardly the actions of imperialists. Even then any
>>>> disputes they do have are along their own borders. Then take a
>>>> look at the US and the UK, they have troops forcably not only
>>>> trying to dominate their regions but those thousands of miles away.
>>
>>> You dont need my support in what you say, freeireland, I am far too
>>> old, bitter and foul mouthed; but I could always see the wood from
>>> the trees. Would China allow an Imperial North Atlantic Treaty
>>> Organization establish itself all the way to Valdivistok? Times have
>>> changed in the 21st century and the old British Whore should get off
>>> the stage. She s the last remaining thread of the Imperialist web
>>> which caused the disaster of the first world war.
>>
>>> Donal
>>
>> Your a bitter, mean, sad wee fucker Donal.
>
> Aye, If only I had know that twenty years ago, Hal, I would have
> better learned how to disguise it

Doctor, Doctor, heal thyself first!

> .
>> One cannot help but wonder why
>> you are still so anti-British
>
> You haven't being paying attention.
>
>> . This is an article which should be Socialist
>> enough for you and yet gives a rough resume of what happened. It
>> also states that Germany started WW1. One wonders where you got
>> "your" propaganda to the contrary from? Read:
>
> Well, the notion of 'blame' never enters my head, I just see
> 'situations". If you put a person in a defined situation, their
> actions (behavour) can be predicted with almost, almost, 100%
> certainty. People will rush to the flag and kill others. A person,
> when part of a mob, will behave irrationally. I have no idea what your
> quotation above means.

Er! What quotation?

>I probably haven't been paying sufficient
> attention. Sorry.
>>
>> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9112
>>
>> Was Germany to blame for the First World War?
>>
>> Who caused the First World War? Revisionist historians argue that
>> the war had to be fought because Germany was aggressive and
>> militaristic, a "rogue state" that threatened "the balance of power"
>> and "the peace of Europe".
>>
>> Some German leaders were certainly preparing for war, and, once it
>> started, some aimed at a German-dominated continental empire.
>>
>> But it is equally true that other top Germans were much more
>> cautious, doubting Germany's ability to win, seeking to avert war
>> and later making overtures for peace, which were rejected.
>>
>> Germany's ruling class of 1914-1918 was, in fact, divided. It is not
>> difficult to understand why. The central issue was how to respond to
>> the threat posed by the British empire.
>>
>> So, Britain may have been a "threat", but "didn't" start the war.
>> What "threat", apart from being there, one still has to find out.
>> Certainly Britain took advantage of the war, no doubt. But in those
>> times wasn't that what any country or empire would do? Come on, do!
>
> That was also the opinion of Francis Ledwidge, but it is not mine, as
> much as I love him.
>
> You don't need conspiracy for people to act in concert. We have to be
> very careful with any situation which might explode into war. I don't
> know exactly why I feel so bitter with the Brits recently - it may
> have something to do with mine own situtation.

Indeed. But genocide? Nasty work there and also highly illegal. From
Wickipedia, quote:
"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part,
of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition
is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2, of this convention
defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in
whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group."[1]

The United Nations has stated that instances of genocide have taken place
throughout history, but it was not until Raphael Lemkin coined the term
genocide and the prosecution of perpetrators of the Holocaust at the
Nuremberg trials that the international community agreed to a treaty -
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(CPPCG) - which defined the crime of genocide under international law.

There was a gap of more than forty years between the CPPCG coming into force
and the first prosecution under the provision of the treaty. To date all
international prosecutions of genocide, for the Rwandan Genocide, the
Srebrenica Genocide, have been by ad hoc international tribunals. The
International Criminal Court came into existence in 2002 and it has the
authority to try people from the states that have signed the treaty, but to
date it has not tried anyone." - Unquote.

The Russian bear has got to have his wrists smacked and made to do better in
future! - Interestingly, isn't this exactly what the PIRA and Republicans
were trying to do to Protestants in NI? I would have thought so!

Best,
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).

[Feck all sassanaigh]

On Aug 18, 3:05 pm, "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> > South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> > the Merkans world dominian over energy.  What is wrong with bicycles?
>
> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
> destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis on
> Stalingrad.
> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.

Utter boll*cks

[conwaycaine]

"Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5501cd45-b82e-401f-a2c1-***@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 3:05 pm, "conwaycaine" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> > South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> > the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
>
> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
> destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis on
> Stalingrad.
> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.

Utter boll*cks

**********

Time will tell. Time will tell.

[Cesar]

conwaycaine wrote:
> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
>> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
>> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
>
> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
> destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis on
> Stalingrad.
> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.
>
>
What utter crap - you must be either blind or drunk to maintain these lies.

[conwaycaine]

"Cesar" <***@ladra.org> wrote in message
news:0rdrk.30119$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> conwaycaine wrote:
>> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
>>> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
>>> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
>>
>> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
>> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
>> destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis
>> on Stalingrad.
>> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
>> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.
>>
>>
> What utter crap - you must be either blind or drunk to maintain these
> lies.

A brilliant response!
I can tell you are well read as well as being a seasoned debater!!!

[Cesar]

conwaycaine wrote:
> "Cesar" <***@ladra.org> wrote in message
> news:0rdrk.30119$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> conwaycaine wrote:
>>> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
>>>> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
>>>> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
>>> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
>>> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
>>> destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis
>>> on Stalingrad.
>>> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
>>> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.
>>>
>>>
>> What utter crap - you must be either blind or drunk to maintain these
>> lies.
>
> A brilliant response!
> I can tell you are well read as well as being a seasoned debater!!!
>
>
Selective blindness to the earlier scenes attested by NGOs of masses of
refugees fleeing from South Ossetia to North Ossetia to avoid the
Georgian pogrom. Tool of Georgiam Bush imperialism !!!

[conwaycaine]

"Cesar" <***@ladra.org> wrote in message
news:PQlrk.30186$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> conwaycaine wrote:
<Snip>

>>> What utter crap - you must be either blind or drunk to maintain these
>>> lies.
>>
>> A brilliant response!
>> I can tell you are well read as well as being a seasoned debater!!!
>>
>>
> Selective blindness to the earlier scenes attested by NGOs of masses of
> refugees fleeing from South Ossetia to North Ossetia to avoid the Georgian
> pogrom. Tool of Georgiam Bush imperialism !!!

Now you've gone and gotten your monitor all wet...............

[Cesar]

conwaycaine wrote:
> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
>> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
>> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
>
> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was there
> destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by the nazis on
> Stalingrad.
> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her region.
> Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and games.
>
>

What planet are you on !!!

South Ossetian civilians were being slaughtered like lambs by the
Georgians before the Russians came to their rescue. The Georgians have
proved themselves unworthy to rule their minority peoples. I'm all for
independence of Ossetia (North and South combined) under Russian
protection as the best way out of this mess of Bush's making. Abkazia too.

[Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.]

Cesar wrote:
> conwaycaine wrote:
>> "Feck all sassanaigh" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c8657625-05e8-495b-a82a-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands
>>> of South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas
>>> pipes....Fuck the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is
>>> wrong with bicycles?
>>
>> Turns out the Russians lied (no surprise there).
>> There were no massacres of South Ossetians by the Ruskies nor was
>> there destruction of cities that was comparable" to that wrought by
>> the nazis on Stalingrad.
>> What we have here is a resurgence of Russian will to dominate her
>> region. Which sets the stage for the next half century of fun and
>> games.
>
> What planet are you on !!!
>
> South Ossetian civilians were being slaughtered like lambs by the
> Georgians before the Russians came to their rescue. The Georgians have
> proved themselves unworthy to rule their minority peoples. I'm all for
> independence of Ossetia (North and South combined) under Russian
> protection as the best way out of this mess of Bush's making. Abkazia
> too.

Bullshit! What planet are you on? The Russians used huge force to crack a
tiny nut. Genocide. Highly illegal!See Wikipedia, quote:
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part,
of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition
is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2, of this convention
defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in
whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group."[1]

The United Nations has stated that instances of genocide have taken place
throughout history, but it was not until Raphael Lemkin coined the term
genocide and the prosecution of perpetrators of the Holocaust at the
Nuremberg trials that the international community agreed to a treaty -
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(CPPCG) - which defined the crime of genocide under international law.

There was a gap of more than forty years between the CPPCG coming into force
and the first prosecution under the provision of the treaty. To date all
international prosecutions of genocide, for the Rwandan Genocide, the
Srebrenica Genocide, have been by ad hoc international tribunals. The
International Criminal Court came into existence in 2002 and it has the
authority to try people from the states that have signed the treaty, but to
date it has not tried anyone." - Unquote.


--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).

[Cesar]

Ceart !!! Tha An h'Ossetians An Scythians agus An Sarmatians agus An
h'Alans. Tha iad caraidhean. Tha An Georgians marbhadairean.

Feck all sassanaigh wrote:
> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?

[Cesar]

Feck all sassanaigh wrote:
> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?

There is no doubt the Georgians went on a pogrom against the civilian
Ossetian population. A large proportion of South Ossetian civilians had
to flee to North Ossetia in Russia to save their lives and those of
their families. What followed was Goebels-like propaganda from the Bush
camp.

[Fred J. McCall]

Cesar <***@ladra.org> wrote:

:Feck all sassanaigh wrote:
:> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
:> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
:> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
:
:There is no doubt the Georgians went on a pogrom against the civilian
:Ossetian population. A large proportion of South Ossetian civilians had
:to flee to North Ossetia in Russia to save their lives and those of
:their families. What followed was Goebels-like propaganda from the Bush
:camp.

Wow, the Russian shills are just coming out of the woodwork like
cockroaches...

[Cesar]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Cesar <***@ladra.org> wrote:
>
> :Feck all sassanaigh wrote:
> :> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
> :> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
> :> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
> :
> :There is no doubt the Georgians went on a pogrom against the civilian
> :Ossetian population. A large proportion of South Ossetian civilians had
> :to flee to North Ossetia in Russia to save their lives and those of
> :their families. What followed was Goebels-like propaganda from the Bush
> :camp.
>
> Wow, the Russian shills are just coming out of the woodwork like
> cockroaches...
>
You must be blind AND deaf.

[Fred J. McCall]

Cesar <***@ladra.org> wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Cesar <***@ladra.org> wrote:
:>
:> :Feck all sassanaigh wrote:
:> :> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
:> :> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
:> :> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
:> :
:> :There is no doubt the Georgians went on a pogrom against the civilian
:> :Ossetian population. A large proportion of South Ossetian civilians had
:> :to flee to North Ossetia in Russia to save their lives and those of
:> :their families. What followed was Goebels-like propaganda from the Bush
:> :camp.
:>
:> Wow, the Russian shills are just coming out of the woodwork like
:> cockroaches...
:>
:You must be blind AND deaf.
:

Would that I was. Then I wouldn't see or hear you shills...

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

[conwaycaine]

"Cesar" <***@ladra.org> wrote in message
news:7Ilrk.30185$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Cesar <***@ladra.org> wrote:
>>
>> :Feck all sassanaigh wrote:
>> :> Good on you Russia - the bastard ordered the slaughter of thousands of
>> :> South Ossetians at Merkan direction in a battle over gas pipes....Fuck
>> :> the Merkans world dominian over energy. What is wrong with bicycles?
>> :
>> :There is no doubt the Georgians went on a pogrom against the civilian
>> :Ossetian population. A large proportion of South Ossetian civilians had
>> :to flee to North Ossetia in Russia to save their lives and those of
>> :their families. What followed was Goebels-like propaganda from the Bush
>> :camp.
>>
>> Wow, the Russian shills are just coming out of the woodwork like
>> cockroaches...
>>
> You must be blind AND deaf.

<Yawn>

[freeireland]

On 22 Aug, 14:41, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On 22 Aug, 01:18, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote::> "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> :>:> ::freeireland wrote:
>
> :>
> :> :
> :> :<silliness elided>
> :> :
> :> :Ah, I see. There's a hierarchy of genocide.
> :> :Cool.
> :> :
> :>
> :> There would almost have to be, given how he misdefines the word.
> :>
> :> I'll just note that, by his definition, the IRA was committing
> :> genocide against the English...
> :
> :I have not defined it but used the definition pointed to by the UN
> :Charter.
> :
> :Ireland is the prime example of  Bristish genocide.
> :
>
> How do you figure that?  By your usage it would be the other way
> around.  After all, it was the IRA that was deliberately killing
> civilians...

The history in Ireland is longer than the 3 decades. There where
plenty of citizens killed by the so called British Security forces.

Again the definition was not mine but that of the UN.

>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

[d***@aol.com]

On Aug 22, 10:42 am, freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 Aug, 14:41, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > :On 22 Aug, 01:18, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote::> "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > :>:> ::freeireland wrote:
>
> > :>
> > :> :
> > :> :<silliness elided>
> > :> :
> > :> :Ah, I see. There's a hierarchy of genocide.
> > :> :Cool.
> > :> :
> > :>
> > :> There would almost have to be, given how he misdefines the word.
> > :>
> > :> I'll just note that, by his definition, the IRA was committing
> > :> genocide against the English...
> > :
> > :I have not defined it but used the definition pointed to by the UN
> > :Charter.
> > :
> > :Ireland is the prime example of  Bristish genocide.
> > :
>
> > How do you figure that?  By your usage it would be the other way
> > around.  After all, it was the IRA that was deliberately killing
> > civilians...
>
> The history in Ireland is longer than the 3 decades. There where
> plenty of citizens killed by the so called British Security forces.
>
> Again the definition was not mine but that of the UN.
>
>

The history of British occupation of Ireland certainly
contains some genocide.....your use of the UN definition seems to
ignore "systematic". A few people from one ethnic group killing
members of another group is not systematic.
For example, the historical treatment of Native Americans by
the US or Aborigines by Australia would be genocide under today's
definition.....but the IRA in Northern Ireland wouldn't be.
The Georgians lobbing some rockets and artillery shells at
Ossetians in an attempt to take back the province also isn't genocide
if that's all that was occurring. Now, if these attacks were combined
with systematic (there's that pesky word again) killing or removal of
Ossetians...that would be genocide.

[Fred J. McCall]

freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:On 22 Aug, 14:41, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> freeireland <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :On 22 Aug, 01:18, Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote::> "Falcon" <***@invalid.net> wrote:
:>
:> :>:> ::freeireland wrote:
:>
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :<silliness elided>
:> :> :
:> :> :Ah, I see. There's a hierarchy of genocide.
:> :> :Cool.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> There would almost have to be, given how he misdefines the word.
:> :>
:> :> I'll just note that, by his definition, the IRA was committing
:> :> genocide against the English...
:> :
:> :I have not defined it but used the definition pointed to by the UN
:> :Charter.
:> :
:> :Ireland is the prime example of  Bristish genocide.
:> :
:>
:> How do you figure that?  By your usage it would be the other way
:> around.  After all, it was the IRA that was deliberately killing
:> civilians...
:
:The history in Ireland is longer than the 3 decades. There where
:plenty of citizens killed by the so called British Security forces.
:

Not so much, no.

:
:Again the definition was not mine but that of the UN.
:

Again the inability to read simple English sentences is yours and not
the UN's.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine