Ok, now this's your turn. GET OVER HERE! Mwa-ha-ha.

Mind I remind you that you were accusing me of spitting BS when simply explained you why you do not get a cognitive dissonance from watching Al-Jazeera. That's because on the North-African and Middle East affairs they're perfectly in tune with American MSM, unlike, say, RT which cause you a lot of butthurt :D

Since that time a lot of time has passed, and by Lybian war, current war in Syria and all this Arab Spring and all that hate Al-Jazeera is getting from locals, it perfectly clear that these so called 6 gulf monarchies, to one of them Al-Jazzeera is accountable (Qatar, check god damn finance part of their operations, check the biography of key people), are in the meantime allied with US, Brits and French position on the state of the business in the region. Natuarally, Al-Jazeera is presenting the official viewpoint of the 6 monarchies, which is close to the mindset within the limits created by the US media and not because Qatar is yours "puppet state" like you've suggested. For me it was perfectly clear back then, actually I'd have been perfectly clear to anyone if you'd know the history of the region since the fall of Ottoman Empire at the very least.

But, of course,   history, politology, global economy is a product of a conspirology culture for you :D I always said that conspirologists and anticonspirologists are two breeds of the same kind. Both cannot exlplain the world around them without conspiracy, one just believes in it the other don't.

So anyone want more?

hey, watch this

DarkThanatos said:

 How is that different from America or the UK?

America in particular is extremely paranoid of "the chinese invasion". Everytime China goes into Africa i see forums where Americans are like "OMG THEIR GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD"

Yeah, America has it's fair share of paranoics.

A simple political advertisement, but it pushes the right buttons:

Or this? Joke it might be, but there were people actually believing in this:

Or recent Romney speech, or rather part about foreign affairs, it might not be concered with invasions per se, but it absolutely screems as neocon. Pointing your finger at someone and screaming "the enemy" is a win-win situation for winning votes in the US, though I cannot say Americans hate someone specifically. This's just generalized human reaction, people's mindset needs an enemy to survive.

Over here or in China despite common stereotypes you do not see a lot of anti-Americanism going on, but it always goes up whenever the US are invading yet another bantustan :D

Err, come again? What about Belarus? What about South Ossetia? Let alone Chechnya which is a part of Russia for almost 200 years? Ukraine?

Elaborate. I cannot comment on smth as laconic.

Chechnya wanted independence like the other former Soviet states. They did not sign the Federation Treaty, and Russia did not honor that. Instead, the Russians invaded Grozny and killed tens of thousands of civilians in the 1st Chechen War. You can say whatever you like, but Russia put troops in a state that wanted to become a soverign entity. Up to 100,000 civilians died in the 1st conflict - almost as many as the Iraq war.

South Ossetia? Russia rolls in tanks within a few hours of Georgia attacking the rebels. They then proceed to destroy as much of the Georgian military as fast as possible. Why was Russia so ready and willing to attack a former state? Why were they mobilized and ready to send their mechanized troops at the drop of a hat? Furthermore, when the Georgians pulled out of South Ossetia, the Russians came in and have more or less annexed the area, by giving their civilians dual-citizenship with Russia.

In the Ukraine, you have the poisoning of anti-Russian presidential candidate (when he was candidate), Viktor Yushchenko. Many point to external influences on that, because he wasn't the Russian-backed favorite.

mrstickball said:

 Chechnya wanted independence like the other former Soviet states. They did not sign the Federation Treaty, and Russia did not honor that. Instead, the Russians invaded Grozny and killed tens of thousands of civilians in the 1st Chechen War. You can say whatever you like, but Russia put troops in a state that wanted to become a soverign entity. Up to 100,000 civilians died in the 1st conflict - almost as many as the Iraq war.

South Ossetia? Russia rolls in tanks within a few hours of Georgia attacking the rebels. They then proceed to destroy as much of the Georgian military as fast as possible. Why was Russia so ready and willing to attack a former state? Why were they mobilized and ready to send their mechanized troops at the drop of a hat? Furthermore, when the Georgians pulled out of South Ossetia, the Russians came in and have more or less annexed the area, by giving their civilians dual-citizenship with Russia.

In the Ukraine, you have the poisoning of anti-Russian presidential candidate (when he was candidate), Viktor Yushchenko. Many point to external influences on that, because he wasn't the Russian-backed favorite.

mrstickball said:

Chechnya wanted independence like the other former Soviet states. They did not sign the Federation Treaty, and Russia did not honor that.

This one is formalistic, but still. They never were Soviet state in the first place.

This one is essential. No, independence isn't the reason for war. This is a childish point of view, as childish as, say, consider American Civil War was started in order to "free slaves".

Instead, the Russians invaded Grozny and killed tens of thousands of civilians in the 1st Chechen War. You can say whatever you like, but Russia put troops in a state that wanted to become a soverign entity. Up to 100,000 civilians died in the 1st conflict - almost as many as the Iraq war.

This one probably the most idiotic. I don't even need bring up data to disprove this one. 100k is almost 10% of population of the region, it's big enough to be seen on demographics charts (100k killed means shitload of refugees and big dive on demographic chart), which it isn't. Do you even understand that in order to kill that many you'd need an actual death camp?

Check Tutsi genocide in Rwanda in 1994 for example, there you might see how huge the impact of killing of 10% population is, and don't bother with this silliness further.

South Ossetia? Russia rolls in tanks within a few hours of Georgia attacking the rebels. They then proceed to destroy as much of the Georgian military as fast as possible. Why was Russia so ready and willing to attack a former state?

What South Ossetia? It' part of Russian Federation now? What this has to do with initial point Kaz has made?

Why were they mobilized and ready to send their mechanized troops at the drop of a hat? Furthermore, when the Georgians pulled out of South Ossetia, the Russians came in and have more or less annexed the area, by giving their civilians dual-citizenship with Russia.

The scale of operation from both sides is tens of thousands involved not counting insurgents. Do you really think military intelligence would miss such an obvious preparations for a war and army won't react "just in case"? Well, then you just know nothing about how army functions. And how exactly you want us to react when foreign army is killing our peackeepers serving there under UN mandate? I'd imagine if Mexico would have pulled such a stunt it'd have been nuked already, lol.

Dual citizenship is widespread on entire territory of ex-USSR, not counting gastarbeiters from Ukraine and Central Asia. It far predates this war.

In the Ukraine, you have the poisoning of anti-Russian presidential candidate (when he was candidate), Viktor Yushchenko. Many point to external influences on that, because he wasn't the Russian-backed favorite.

Err, too much espionage movies, I guess? AFAIR investigation in Ukraine hasn't come to conclusion of blaiming Russian special service for posioning Yuschenko. On what exactly you're basing your accusations? I'm not sure what we might have achieved with killing of Yuschenko? Ukraine merging with Russia, lol? Well, current Yanukovich is considered pro-Russian, did they merge? No. If merging is not the case, then I'm not sure why your brought this case up.

In fact you're very inconsistent here. Onland operation in Lybia is no-no, though there're multiple evidence to it, but Yuschenko was poisoned this's obviously a hand of Kremlin?

Hi again, mrstickball,

Here goes disproving some of your BS if you're still interested.

Well, in the end. What I see is just you being desperate and trying various accusations, half of which do not even has anything to do with the point Kaz has raised. We're the worst - this's what you're trying to say to me, right? Well, I kinda get used to this already :D Nothing new here. If I'd return a favor in a similar way I might need to write a f**king novel then.

So much to standing up to my BS :D Ironic.