Big Bad Bears - Russia and Putin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

You're contradicting yourself there.

I hate the fact that visas are needed to visit Russia to get in and out, but I have to respect it and their way of doing things. I hate the fact our government refuse to sign up to Schengen, making it more difficult for Russians (and other Eastern European nationalities) to visit Ireland, but that is how it is, and it won't change anytime soon.

---

By signing up to Schengen we lose the CTA. And I don't think that it would be very palatable to suddently require a passport to go from Belcoo to Blacklion and vice versa.

You spout about governments' rights to discriminate on the basis of value systems that they hold. But then equally hate the fact that say, this State sees more value in remaining outside Schengen (which I agree with) than being within.

Making it difficult for just Russians, Ukranians, Belorussians, Georgians and Moldovans essentially. Their love of Ireland knows no bounds.

---

Discrimination of any form is unacceptable. Whether on the basis of gender or orientation etc. That some places don't subscribe to these "wild" notions does not mean that we should accept it.

Just look up the road as we find ourselves in the Twelfth fortnight and see the jingoism that goes along with being the "Chosen people". Should we accept it because "they" consider it okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

My position has been consistent from the very beginning. When evidence has been provided to back up the points, the goalposts have been moved onto something else, such as crap about life in the animal kingdom and what life is like for women in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and so on.

---

They weren't crap, they were analogies supposed to highlight that you were being hypocritical. In fact, they've shown you up to be something far worse.

Quote:

---

Again, you're seeing the above example from the perspective of our culture, and to us it is wrong. In Saudi Arabia, they see it differently. What's right to us is not necessarily right to them.

---

Treating women not even as second-class citizens, but as property is objectively wrong, whether it's their culture or not. I'm actually staggered that someone is genuinely justifying the subjugation of half the population in the country.

ISIL are burning people alive for violating their interpretation of Sharia Law. Is that "right for them"?

Quote:

---

If a man does a job for 40 hours (+ overtime) a week, and a woman does the same job for 20 hours a week, do you honestly expect them to receive the same salary?

---

No. And I never said I did.

Women receive, on average, 70% of the pay for the same work. Not for a different kind of work, not for a smaller amount of work. The same work.

Quote:

---

Yes. You ran out of arguments.

---

You really think that, don't you? It makes me sad that you are probably never going to change your ridiculous opinions.

Amazing how many posters just can't stay on topic. Next in to bat...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

By signing up to Schengen we lose the CTA. And I don't think that it would be very palatable to suddently require a passport to go from Belcoo to Blacklion and vice versa.

You spout about governments' rights to discriminate on the basis of value systems that they hold. But then equally hate the fact that say, this State sees more value in remaining outside Schengen (which I agree with) than being within.

Making it difficult for just Russians, Ukranians, Belorussians, Georgians and Moldovans essentially. Their love of Ireland knows no bounds.

---

Discrimination of any form is unacceptable. Whether on the basis of gender or orientation etc. That some places don't subscribe to these "wild" notions does not mean that we should accept it.

Just look up the road as we find ourselves in the Twelfth fortnight and see the jingoism that goes along with being the "Chosen people". Should we accept it because "they" consider it okay?

---

The twelfth is part of another country's culture. What we think of it isn't going to change it. Their country, their problem.

You argue that discrimination is wrong, just after happily doing so to hundreds of millions of fellow Europeans, just so you can go from Belcoo UK to Blacklion in our country without bringing your passport.

Of course, going from Belcoo to Blacklion would not be any issue at all if the brits also signed up to Schengen. Schengen is a CTA in itself, and it's much easier for said hundreds of millions of Europeans to go to the lucky ones in Schengen and invest their cash in those economies instead, so they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

Treating women not even as second-class citizens, but as property is objectively wrong, whether it's their culture or not. I'm actually staggered that someone is genuinely justifying the subjugation of half the population in the country.

---

As you didn't read what I said, it's easy to see why you missed the point.

I didn't justify the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. I said that they treat women according to the traditions of their culture, which is different to ours. And if Irish people go there, they have to accept and abide by the rules of their culture, regardless whether they think it's right or wrong.

Quote:

---

You really think that, don't you?

---

Indeed. Merely rewriting a quote to replace it with terms and phrases that suit your agenda is not an argument, let alone a poor one.

Discrimination exists. Trying to get rid of it, is like trying to get rid of poverty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

You haven't had any tolerance for different viewpoints. As you demonstrate once again below...

---

"Respect" can mean two things. It can mean that I acknowledge and tolerate your opinion in the sense I would defend your right to have it and would object to its suppression. I respect your opinion in that sense. The word can also connote admiration, however, but I find precious little to admire in your posts on this matter. I acknowledge your right to hold your opinion, even if I do find it objectionable, but I have absolutely no respect (admiration) for the manner in which you've continuously dodged crucial questions throughout this argument. This post was just another in a long line of avoidance attempts.

Quote:

---

What your brain believes is really not my concern, but I don't find any of this debate a laughing matter. To me, it's pretty straight forward. Humans are brought into the world by a hetero act, and are therefore programmed as adults, to find a loving, hetero partner, so the species can be repopulated in the future. Russia as most of the world, recognises this and therefore advocates traditional family/marital relations which I fully support. That is their culture and it should be respected, not subject to sanctions. That is my opinion, it hasn't changed from the beginning, and it won't, no matter how many times you move the goalposts.

---

But the evidence - loads of it throughout numerous posts in this thread that you've conveniently ignored time and time again - completely contradicts your notion that humans are "programmed as adults, to find a loving, hetero partner, so the species can be repopulated in the future". There's been nobody moving goalposts except yourself in your effort to avoid Peadar's question.

Quote:

---

If a man does a job for 40 hours (+ overtime) a week, and a woman does the same job for 20 hours a week, do you honestly expect them to receive the same salary?

---

Do you see it as inequitable that they don't? If not, why not and what justifies such discrimination? Why shouldn't women honestly expect to receive the same salary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The twelfth is part of another country's culture. What we think of it isn't going to change it. Their country, their problem.

---

Does your interest in or willingness to admit or offer a solid, meaningful opinion on anything you deem "foreign" genuinely cease upon crossing an artificially-drawn territorial boundary (as any state boundary is)? It strikes me as another disingenuous pretence; just another cop-out or means of passing the buck, so to speak, because you lack the courage to face up to pertinent questions. We're all humans, aren't we? And, besides, you've already demonstrated you're more than happy to get off the fence and advocate foreign discrimination when you feel it suits you.

Anyway, your partitionist instinct may ignorantly blind you and empower you with an aloof sense of privilege or luxury of being able to feel completely untroubled by the experience of Irish nationals in the north of Ireland - good luck to you - but, even if you don't think Orangeism is an Irish cultural issue, and I'm not sure how you could think that, Orangeism has a presence in the Republic too; there are lodges in nine counties south of the border and the state provides the Order with public-money funding. So not quite as simple as "their problem" and being done with it like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

As you didn't read what I said, it's easy to see why you missed the point.

I didn't justify the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. I said that they treat women according to the traditions of their culture, which is different to ours. And if Irish people go there, they have to accept and abide by the rules of their culture, regardless whether they think it's right or wrong.

---

Which has nothing to do with whether we have to agree with it or not. If I was a woman in Saudi Arabia, I would cover my hair so as not to go to prison. That has nothing to do with whether or not the state and the general population are right to systematically oppress women.

Remember that your whole line of argument before was that it was okay for Russia to discriminate against homosexuals because it was their culture? Not that there was nothing much we as westerners could do about it, or that it would be advisable for homosexuals to stay under the radar if they went there, that it was okay.

Quote:

---

Indeed. Merely rewriting a quote to replace it with terms and phrases that suit your agenda is not an argument, let alone a poor one.

---

Only because you seem completely incapable of understanding the concept of an analogy.

In any case, I've been making the same argument over and over again, just rephrasing it to satisfy your constantly-shifting goalposts.

Quote:

---

Discrimination exists. Trying to get rid of it, is like trying to get rid of poverty.

---

Yeah, those negroes in the southern US shouldn't have fought for equal rights, the Irish shouldn't have fought to get rid of the Statutes of Kilkenny, and women shouldn't have fought for the vote. Discrimination exists, and instead of doing anything to change it, we should just sit back and accept it.

I came across this interesting BBC piece on the tricky issue of gender/sex in sport: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/29446276

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC Sport

"For lots of good reasons, we have decided to have a class of athletes who aren't men," Epstein explained.

"But biological sex is not binary. That means whichever line you draw between men and women it is going to be arbitrary."

For now, Epstein agrees with the IAAF's experts that testosterone is probably "the best line we can draw", although he would prefer it if those experts at least admitted they were making an educated guess.

---

It led me to have a a read around how we define biological sex. I came across this piece debunking the notion of biological sex as binary and thought of you, mypost (wherever you've hidden yourself): http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

So not only is sexuality not a binary manner, scientific thinking sees biological sex as being on a spectrum or continuum now too, whilst general lay attitudes still lag behind, arbitrarily or crudely pigeon-holing complex human diversity into two neat social (but scientifically dubious) categories. If biological sex is evidently non-binary, then your whole argument that humans are pre-programmed to find a "hetero" partner of the "opposite" gender simply cannot be sustained. There are no opposites in reality; just constructs that we have erected in order to help us understand our exceptionally complicated nature. Problem is, those constructs are clearly far too simplistic. How do you explain the reality (not mere concept) of multiple sexes/intersexuality within your narrow view of human biology and sexuality? You can't just pretend intersexuality doesn't exist. In what manner do you purport intersex people are "pre-programmed" to behave sexually?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Amazing how many posters just can't stay on topic. Next in to bat...

---

What's the topic? The goal-posts have moved so much I'm not even sure what bloody sport we're playing anymore.

Oh wait, bat... baseball? Yeah? I geddit.

Quote:

---

The twelfth is part of another country's culture. What we think of it isn't going to change it. Their country, their problem.

---

That's why it is a problem because of this partitionist view.

Quote:

---

You argue that discrimination is wrong, just after happily doing so to hundreds of millions of fellow Europeans, just so you can go from Belcoo UK to Blacklion in our country without bringing your passport.

---

Hold on a second, you think it is okay to inconvenice your own citizenry but to inconvenience a hypothetical bunch of people from eastern Europe who may or may not ever want to nor need to come to Ireland is downright unacceptable?

Belcoo and Blacklion are in the same country, my country. They just happen to be divided by two jurisdictions. That you posess a different opinion or feeling on this is up to you. But to be honest I'll inconvenience Belarussians or Moldovans over my fellow Irishmen be they from Fermanagh or Cork or Derry or Cavan anyday.

One day you'll get North of Balbriggan in your spaceship and we'll chat about it.

Quote:

---

Of course, going from Belcoo to Blacklion would not be any issue at all if the brits also signed up to Schengen. Schengen is a CTA in itself, and it's much easier for said hundreds of millions of Europeans to go to the lucky ones in Schengen and invest their cash in those economies instead, so they do.

---

Why should the Brits sign up to Schengen? Schengen is a form of CTA alright, but for Ireland and Britaian the CTA is obviously more important to their citizens, culturaly, politically and economically.

Quote:

---

As you didn't read what I said, it's easy to see why you missed the point.

---

I really don't have time to go over all of your absolute spacecadet ramblings.

Balbriggan by space ship? Is there no direct bus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Balbriggan by space ship? Is there no direct bus?

---

There was. Network Direct saw to its demise.

Now he has problems getting from the gate to passport control to luggage collection to the 747 in 5min.

In the 2 weeks I was on holiday, my salary managed to lose 14% of it's value, which is nice. Same happened last November, go out on holidays, come back and it was slashed by 41%, and in my last job I lost over 50% of the value of my salary from when I signed the contract to when I handed in my notice! Everything is getting very tight here yet the government have more important things to worry about. Russia's close (or closer) ties with China have taken a beating as well. Ukraine is no longer a real distraction and there is some surprise that head honchos are drifting away - Yakunin in Russian Railways being the latest. Yet all the time the government are more concerned with showpiece events like destroying smuggled food/ingredients or getting as much money as possible out of the country.

Odd little cases:
Former Defence Minister was done for major dodginess, was arrested when he was in his "lovenest" with his not too old assistant - the lovenest was next door to where his family live, I mean, NEXT DOOR! So, millions gone, she takes the fall, makes a pop video, gets sentenced but disappears - only showing up doing her shopping in boutiques and exclusive Moscow food stores. She only handed back 2/3 of the money she made.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/a...es/527902.html Worth a read, if only to see how much money can be made if you have the right connections!

Ex Russian Football Union President and Min of Sport, Vitaly Mutko, is back as President in an unopposed election. His only rival was bought off with a role on the executive and told he can run next year.

In the meantime, Sheremetyevo is being sold off to one of Putin's buddies (Rotenburg) and Putin is shot doing a work out with the Prime Minister, with the obligatory breakfast shots.

All the while the 3rd Rome burns as the currency bounces all over the place in line with oil. Today I'm attending a meeting of European Businesses, more than 1/3 of foreign (EU-NAm) workers have left since November 2013 and the number has not been replaced - according to the FMS (migration service). 1 in 6 Tajiks, Kyrgyz, Uzbek have left the country in the last 9 months - due to a mix of labour laws and firings.

In May I exchanged euros for roubles and got about 51rb-1eur. Last week it was 81r-1eur.

His domestic governance may be abhorrent but his take on international matters is on point. This is a stirring speech and it's about time America and its buddies were told the truth.

http://newsrescue.com/putin-un-speec...#axzz3nNeKQZym

Id say there must be a mad scramble of CIA ops from that area of Syria at the moment:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

Which has nothing to do with whether we have to agree with it or not. If I was a woman in Saudi Arabia, I would cover my hair so as not to go to prison. That has nothing to do with whether or not the state and the general population are right to systematically oppress women.

---

I never said it was right, I don't even agree with it, but if women go to Saudi Arabia, then they must respect the culture and laws of Saudi Arabia, whether they like it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

That's why it is a problem because of this partitionist view.

Hold on a second, Belcoo and Blacklion are in the same country, my country. They just happen to be divided by two jurisdictions. That you posess a different opinion or feeling on this is up to you. But to be honest I'll inconvenience Belarussians or Moldovans over my fellow Irishmen be they from Fermanagh or Cork or Derry or Cavan anyday.

---

Belcoo, Fermanagh, and Derry are in the United Kingdom. Blacklion, Cork, and Cavan are in Ireland. The border is an internationally recognised line separating one EU state from another, as other borders do likewise throughout Europe, and beyond. It didn't just happen, it's there for a reason, and it hasn't budged an inch for almost 100 years. That's not a "partitionist view", that's the way it is.

10 years ago, Frazier and his merry band of brits were drawing up plans to wave their flags and bang their drums in OCS, which brought strong debate on this forum. Even though they had zero chance of making it down the street, the authorities refused to cancel the event, and on the day itself, the inevitable happened.

The Twelfth itself is british culture for brits in the UK. It's a matter for them to deal with.

Quote:

---

I really don't have time to go over all of your ramblings.

---

Hence you don't get the point. Now, bring on the quizmaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

"Respect" can mean two things. It can mean that I acknowledge and tolerate your opinion in the sense I would defend your right to have it and would object to its suppression. I respect your opinion in that sense. The word can also connote admiration, however, but I find precious little to admire in your posts on this matter. I acknowledge your right to hold your opinion, even if I do find it objectionable, but I have absolutely no respect (admiration) for the manner in which you've continuously dodged crucial questions throughout this argument.

---

I'm looking for the latter. You never get the former for holding non-pc opinions. I'm not demanding respect for avoiding certain questions. Some of them shouldn't even be asked, never mind answered.

Quote:

---

But the evidence - contradicts your notion that humans are "programmed as adults, to find a loving, hetero partner, so the species can be repopulated in the future".

---

It doesn't. It was one of my first posts on the issue, reflecting a clear black and white biological reality of life, and you've spent the rest of the thread trying to turn it grey. Without success.

Back to the Ruskies, whose government have in their wisdom, decided to have a go at Syria. What military targets are left for any airforce to attack there is a mystery to me, but it's cost them about 250 lives to date, with aircraft shot down or blown apart. It's over double the amount massacred in Paris, but received a tenth of the media attention. Mass murder is mass murder, whether it's in Paris or anywhere else, the consequences are the same, and so should receive the same level of attention.

As a result, I believe the Russian government have instructed their clubs not to buy players from Turkey. That to me is government interference in football affairs, which is banned under FIFA regulations with crystal clear consequences. Yet the silence from them so far has been deafening. Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

I never said it was right, I don't even agree with it, but if women go to Saudi Arabia, then they must respect the culture and laws of Saudi Arabia, whether they like it or not.

---

But you condoned, or endorsed even, Russian discrimination against homosexuals and the reason you gave for your approval was "because it [homophobia] is their culture". Now you're disapproving of discriminatory Saudi policy in respect of women despite patriarchy also being an element of Saudi culture. You're guilty of double standards. If you can take moral issue with Saudi Arabia on account of its discrimination, what's really stopping you from taking issue with Russian discrimination? Your own homophobic prejudices perhaps?

Quote:

---

The Twelfth itself is british culture for brits in the UK. It's a matter for them to deal with.

---

Even if you do wish to ignorantly dismiss anything and everything north of the border as non-Irish, you are aware that the Orange Order has a long-standing presence in the south? They are an all-island organisation (funnily enough). Indeed, they receive governmental funding from both jurisdictions. They regularly meet in the south - there are Orange halls in Cavan, Cork, Donegal, Dublin, Laois, Leitrim, Louth, Monaghan and Wicklow - and they even have a march in Rossnowlagh (Donegal) every year. And you must know where the Boyne is? Y'know, that river by which the battle they commemorate took place...

Quote:

---

Now, bring on the quizmaster.

---

Your continued hostility to closer scrutiny of your publicly-expressed views is telling.

Quote:

---

I'm looking for the latter. You never get the former for holding non-pc opinions. I'm not demanding respect for avoiding certain questions. Some of them shouldn't even be asked, never mind answered.

---

You're seeking admiration from me? I'm afraid you won't be getting it, nor am I under any duty whatsoever to give it (I find the views you've consistently expressed throughout this thread thoroughly repugnant and insulting, as well as demonstrably inaccurate, and the manner in which you've gone about "debating" them has been wholeheartedly disingenuous and evasive), but why do you seek my admiration? You've not been particularly respectful yourself, have you, yet you expect admiration from others?... Laughable hypocrisy.

Who is denying you your voice for holding "non-PC opinions"? You're as free to post them and have then questioned as I am mine, which I think is great, although the examination clearly irks you as all you've done is try to dodge it. Others holding your views up to scrutiny doesn't equate to intolerance on their part. If you don't want to debate and have your views challenged by others, stop publicly expressing them and engaging. And the issue isn't that your views are "non-PC", lest you get away with playing the poor victim (spare us, please); it's that they simply don't stack up. They're based on groundless and ignorant presumptions and that has been demonstrated time and time again, but you don't even have the honesty to acknowledge the validity of the counter-arguments.

Or have you gotten mixed up between the meanings of "latter" and "former"?

Why exactly shouldn't the questions be asked? Why are they taboo? Because you say so? Because it forces you to scrutinise your shaky presumptions?... You expressed opinions and others, including myself, have asked questions of them. What were you doing expressing them on a public forum in the first place if you didn't want questions asked of them?

Quote:

---

It doesn't. It was one of my first posts on the issue, reflecting a clear black and white biological reality of life, and you've spent the rest of the thread trying to turn it grey. Without success.

---

But there is no "clear black and white biological reality of life" in the sense you try to portray in terms of gender and sexuality. You simply stating that doesn't reflect proof or evidence of anything, nor does simply ignoring the substantive points I've raised to contradict your assertions. The definitions we commonly use - "man"/"women" or "homosexual"/"heterosexual" - are human constructs that have arisen as a result of particular historical patterns of human behaviour (or societal preferences for particular behaviour). They help simplify things for us into easier-identified categories in order to make "understanding" life's complexities and its social organisation a bit more convenient (or, indeed, to make life a bit more difficult for "others"/"outsiders", in many cases), but they are nevertheless limited in their arbitrariness.

Biology, gender and sexuality are not binary concepts; they are evidently fluid, spectral or of a continuum, or grey, if you prefer. It might be easy enough to identify what we socially think of as a biological man or a woman in most cases because there are a certain number of physical human traits that we see as being exclusive to both that most humans of either category respectively possess exclusively, but the existence of humans who possess a combination of these supposed exclusive or essential traits or who straddle the line of our constructed definitions demonstrates that the definitions are not concrete and are only that; fallible constructs of our imaginations. "Man" and "woman" are simply broad covering terms, but they do not cover the totality of sexual diversity. Once you acknowledge that reality, you can no longer sustain the notion (which is unproven and highly suspect anyway for the many reasons already outlined to you) that humans are "programmed as adults, to find a loving, hetero partner, so the species can be repopulated in the future"; the statement cannot even make sense as far as what we commonly refer to as transsexual/transgendered/intersex persons (and you cannot just deny that they exist) are concerned. If someone is evidently intersex, the notion of an "opposite sex" has no meaning for them because there's no such thing as even a perceived or constructed opposite in such a context.

See you again in a few months maybe...

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-a...erous-numbers/

"I am certain, and I stress, I am certain that the Ukrainian military and the Russian military will not be facing each other, they will be on the same side in a fight." Vladimir Putin, March 4th 2014



from Report preface: The war in eastern Ukraine is known under multiple names; most often formulations similar to Ukrainian civil war or Ukrainian conflict are still used to describe the war. The implied characteristic as solely internal Ukrainian conflict is heavily disputed and an active Russian participation is widely accepted. While there is now plentiful evidence documenting a direct and decisive participation of Russian servicemen and the Russian armed forces in the fighting in eastern Ukraine since summer 2014, it is however not possible to support the various claims about the size of the Russian involvement using public available information.

Given the nature of open source evidence, it is near impossible to provide an exact number of Russian servicemen participating in the fighting in eastern Ukraine only relying on this type of information. The open source research done by @Askai707 and InformNapalm strongly suggest that – at minimum – hundreds of Russian servicemen were involved in the fighting so far....

It's been a while since I was last here, so maybe it's time for some catching up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Now you're disapproving of discriminatory Saudi policy in respect of women despite patriarchy also being an element of Saudi culture. If you can take moral issue with Saudi Arabia on account of its discrimination, what's really stopping you from taking issue with Russian discrimination?

---

I never said it was discrimination. What I said was, if you go to these countries, you comply with their laws and their culture. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial.

Quote:

---

Even if you do wish to ignorantly dismiss anything and everything north of the border as non-Irish, you are aware that the Orange Order has a long-standing presence in the south? They are an all-island organisation (funnily enough). Indeed, they receive governmental funding from both jurisdictions. They regularly meet in the south - there are Orange halls in Cavan, Cork, Donegal, Dublin, Laois, Leitrim, Louth, Monaghan and Wicklow - and they even have a march in Rossnowlagh (Donegal) every year. And you must know where the Boyne is? Y'know, that river by which the battle they commemorate took place...

---

So what. There are Mosques in Ireland for the Muslim minority. This is still a Catholic country, in the same way as Russia is a conservative Orthodox country.

I'm an Irishman living in Republic of Ireland. What happens in Drumcree is treated by me as if it were in Doncaster or Dover. The issues are for foreigners living in a foreign country to deal with.

Quote:

---

Your continued hostility to closer scrutiny of your publicly-expressed views is telling.

You're seeking admiration from me? Laughable hypocrisy.

---

As it happens no. This is what I look for.

Quote:

---

"Respect" mean that I acknowledge and tolerate your opinion in the sense I would defend your right to have it and would object to its suppression. I respect your opinion in that sense.

---

Unfortunately however, it doesn't quite work in practice.

Quote:

---

If you don't want to debate and have your views challenged by others, stop publicly expressing them and engaging.

---

Ok. So again, what part of "I don't want a debate on this", do you not understand?

You've made it a debate. Furthermore instead of debating Russia, you've made me the focus of the thread. So that means I have no choice but to respond, or as you put it, "engaging".

Quote:

---

Why exactly shouldn't the questions be asked? Why are they taboo? Because you say so? Because it forces you to scrutinise your shaky presumptions?... You expressed opinions and others, including myself, have asked questions of them. What were you doing expressing them on a public forum in the first place if you didn't want questions asked of them?

---

5 questions in that paragraph alone.

This is a thread about Russia. Not NI, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, America, or anywhere else. It's not about the animal kingdom or nature. It's about Russia, Russian culture, Russian politics, and Russian life. That is all. If questions asked have nothing to do with Russia, I'm not obliged to answer. If they contain views or language I find objectionable, I'm not obliged to answer. If it's a pile of glorified rubbish/waffle, I'm not obliged to answer. Most of what I am responding to, is about me. When I post about Russia as I should, you don't respond as you're not interested.

With diplomatic American-Russian relations at rock bottom, the election of Trump is timely, and will hopefully smooth things. Putin has warmly welcomed the stunning success of Trump, who stormed into the Oval Office by blowing the blue wall away, by overcoming 17 opponents of varying degrees of experience. But it will be interesting to gauge Trump and the West's response in general when the Russian Presidential elections are held in 15 months. Well not so much an election as an elaborate coronation for Putin, who is certain to win, just in time for the World Cup, and allow every visitor a rare visa free experience criss-crossing the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

So what. There are Mosques in Ireland for the Muslim minority. This is still a Catholic country, in the same way as Russia is a conservative Orthodox country.

I'm an Irishman living in Republic of Ireland. What happens in Drumcree is treated by me as if it were in Doncaster or Dover. The issues are for foreigners living in a foreign country to deal with.

---

Our constitution makes it very clear that Ireland has no state religion. The Catholic Church may well be the biggest denomination, but even counting the legions of people who claim to be Catholic without showing up at Mass from one decade to the next, the Irish Republic is 84% Catholic. The number of people claim another religious affiliation or none is roughly the same as the number of people who are left-handed.

I've never heard anyone refer to us as a right handed country.

And I am not a foreigner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

It's been a while since I was last here, so maybe it's time for some catching up.

---

It's been a while for myself too, but I think I'll leave this one here. It's clear you have no interest in a sincere discussion on the matters that have arisen directly from the preceding exchanges.

Winner by fatality: mypost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

With diplomatic American-Russian relations at rock bottom, the election of Trump is timely, and will hopefully smooth things. Putin has warmly welcomed the stunning success of Trump, who stormed into the Oval Office by blowing the blue wall away, by overcoming 17 opponents of varying degrees of experience.

---

I hadn't even read down this far in MPs post but y'know what'd also smooth things?* Russia admitting it murdered the 298 people on MH17 and agreeing to take responsibility for the consequences. Russia admitting it's been fighting a war in that part of the world for three years now -firing missiles from locations on both sides of the Russian/Ukrainian border at targets inside Ukraine as well as kitting out drunken thugs with guns, ammo and whatever else they can find a use for.

*Not that I think for a second Trumplethinskin gives a flying one about any of this -but it'd begin the making good process with the rest of the world.

I think the US could come clean on a lot as well in order to benefit international relations and its own credibility.

I recently came across this article from May 2016 and found it very interesting as it explains the context behind the present day's frosty relations between the West and Russia: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...nap-story.html

I had been previously unaware that the US promised the Soviet Union in 1990 not to expand NATO any further east of Berlin, but has very clearly reneged on that by positioning NATO troops and installations along the Russian border. This is the side of the story we don't tend to hear about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson

Moscow solidified its hold on Crimea in April, outlawing the Tatar legislature that had opposed Russia’s annexation of the region since 2014. Together with Russian military provocations against NATO forces in and around the Baltic, this move seems to validate the observations of Western analysts who argue that under Vladimir Putin, an increasingly aggressive Russia is determined to dominate its neighbors and menace Europe.

Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party. They claim the United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification. In this view, Russia is being forced to forestall NATO’s eastward march as a matter of self-defense.

The West has vigorously protested that no such deal was ever struck. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise. Although what the documents reveal isn’t enough to make Putin a saint, it suggests that the diagnosis of Russian predation isn’t entirely fair. Europe’s stability may depend just as much on the West’s willingness to reassure Russia about NATO’s limits as on deterring Moscow’s adventurism.

...

---

Noam Chomsky discusses the US's reneging on the agreement here also from 40m32s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0qd...tu.be&t=40m32s

Interesting read indeed and there’s a lot of truth in what Chomsky says in that vid. I think the Americans were pretty dismissive of the Russians for much of the 90’s and 00’s as an ‘ex-superpower’ and they would’ve seen an expanded NATO filling a security vacuum –real or imagined. Not sure how serious he was but I remember Dubya imploring Russia to 'join with us' from some podium as he launched his 'War On Terror' -of which the Russians quite correctly protested he was messing with forces he simply did not understand.

But those countries on Russias border, the baltic states for example, which have Russian minorities and surround a Russian enclave –they wanted to be in NATO and evidently feel safer in it. The articles writer goes on to point out, quite correctly in my view, that an expanding NATO (of which I’m no fan btw) doesn’t justify Putins bellicosity. I think the Russian administration themselves even believe that –otherwise I doubt they’d bother with all the cloak and dagger stuff like sneaking men and munitions in and out of Ukraine, firing missiles into Ukraine, their tragi-comic performance around MH17 where they’ve been all smoke and mirrors. They’ve witheld, destroyed, misrepresented and falsified data. They’ve shown a level of naivety around simple desktop applications like photoshop that makes their ownership of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world all the more worrying. And all the while they’ve this brazen “sure that could be anyones ass in that picture” response as the mountain of buttressed evidence against them grows higher.

I’ve no horn for Ukraine by the way. That country appears to be quite corrupt, has made some terrible, silly moves –childish but provocative stuff like disestablishing Russian as an official language. Ukraine also appears to be simply too big to hold together as currently configured. I admit to knowing little about the complexities but for example the case for Crimea being part of Ukraine seems to me to be scarcely stronger than they case for Donegal being part of Northern Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hdNpXJjfiI

Leading Putin critic Alexei Navalny arrested as he leaves house in Moscow today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

Our constitution makes it very clear that Ireland has no state religion. The Catholic Church may well be the biggest denomination, but even counting the legions of people who claim to be Catholic without showing up at Mass from one decade to the next, the Irish Republic is 84% Catholic.

---

Hence why it's a Catholic country.

Furthermore, our culture remains deeply rooted in the Catholic religion.

Want to go to school? You have to be Catholic.
Want to be baptised? You have to be Catholic.
Easter/Christmas holidays? Catholic
Want to go down the Pub on Good Friday? Er, we're Catholics so you'll stay at home.
Unplanned Pregnancy? We're Catholics so you'll keep it in this country.
6pm news on TV? No it's the 6.01 news, as Catholic rituals take priority.

There may be a limited number of exceptions to the above, but they are exceptions. 8 out of 10 citizens in this country are Catholic. That's what we call a modern, multi-cultural nation.

Back to Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Interesting read indeed and there’s a lot of truth in what Chomsky says in that vid. I think the Americans were pretty dismissive of the Russians for much of the 90’s and 00’s as an ‘ex-superpower’ and they would’ve seen an expanded NATO filling a security vacuum –real or imagined. Not sure how serious he was but I remember Dubya imploring Russia to 'join with us' from some podium as he launched his 'War On Terror' -of which the Russians quite correctly protested he was messing with forces he simply did not understand.

---

Chomsky is a professional dissident, so it's difficult to take anything he says seriously.

Since Trump took decisive action in Syria, relations between the superpowers have sunk further. However, they were still able to negotiate a ceasefire in part of Syria in just one meeting between Trump and Putin, so there's still hope that get can get along. Despite the amount of lives it undoubtedly saved, the media were more concerned that there were not enough interpreters present for it. Not that there is much need, as all present at the meeting speak English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

It's been a while for myself too, but I think I'll leave this one here. It's clear you have no interest in a sincere discussion on the matters that have arisen directly from the preceding exchanges.

---

Good. About time the message from my very first post on the thread has sunk in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Hence why it's a Catholic country.

Furthermore, our culture remains deeply rooted in the Catholic religion.

Want to go to school? You have to be Catholic.
Want to be baptised? You have to be Catholic.
Easter/Christmas holidays? Catholic
Want to go down the Pub on Good Friday? Er, we're Catholics so you'll stay at home.
Unplanned Pregnancy? We're Catholics so you'll keep it in this country.
6pm news on TV? No it's the 6.01 news, as Catholic rituals take priority.

There may be a limited number of exceptions to the above, but they are exceptions. 8 out of 10 citizens in this country are Catholic. That's what we call a modern, multi-cultural nation.

---

Of course non-Catholic children can receive an education in Ireland (and you obviously know this). What an odd claim to make seemingly in order to try and support your suspect assertion. Certainly, things can be a little bit more difficult for them (depending on location) than if they were baptised Catholic, but, thankfully, the discriminatory "Baptism barrier" is set to be lifted in time.

And if Ireland is indeed a "Catholic country", what explains, say, the legislating for same-sex marriage after a popular referendum approved its legalisation in 2015?

The official position of the Catholic Church on abortion (meaning: the direct and intentional termination of a pregnancy) is that abortion is immoral in all circumstance and that it therefore should be prohibited in all circumstances. When the side-effect of a medical intervention in order to save the life of a (pregnant) woman happens to result in the unintended loss of viability of a foetus she is carrying, the Church regards such medical intervention to be permissible, so long as the medical practitioners performing the intervention do everything in their power to save both the viability of the foetus and the life of the woman. Irish abortion law - although still very stringent - doesn't align with that either. Irish abortion law, for example, permits three doctors to validate an abortive procedure when they unanimously agree that a pregnant woman is at risk of taking her life on account of the pregnancy; the Church opposes this on the basis that it regards it as the intentional termination of a foetus (which, in the opinion of the Church, is a human being with an absolute and inviolable right to life) and has condemned legislation for it as "co-operation with evil".

Whilst Ireland isn't a Catholic country - because, as BTTW has already highlighted, it has no official state religion (unlike, say, the UK or an Islamic republic), nor is it ruled by the Vatican - neither, in my opinion, is it quite there yet in terms of being a truly modern, multi-cultural nation, as you contradictorily attempt to claim whilst simultaneously appearing to smugly extol the imposition of Catholic-influenced restrictions, traditions and values upon Ireland's non-Catholic minorities by its Catholic majority. Wouldn't a truly modern, multi-cultural nation cater for its diversity rather than stifle the choices and suppress the options of non-Catholics?

Quote:

---

Chomsky is a professional dissident, so it's difficult to take anything he says seriously.

---

Are you suggesting Chomsky is compromised or why exactly is it supposedly difficult to take his opinions seriously?

What are peoples' thoughts about Uncle Leo getting involved in this? He's expelled a diplomat / possible spy as a result of what happened in the UK a few weeks ago. He said that while Ireland is a neutral country in terms of war, it isn't in terms of assassinations and chemical weapons. I'm not really sure there are shades of neutrality as he suggests.

Possibly a few ways of looking at this. A little bit of solidarity with Britain against the Brexit backdrop won’t do any harm in how the government is perceived by elements in the British media (not the Mail or Daily Torygraph, obviously, but some). Likewise, it will boost our credentials with the EU.

More likely is that FG has been quietly hawkish in international military affairs for some years now –at the end of the nineties they were advocating joining NATO front Partnership for Peace (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/fg-u...-nato-1.127708 ), and more recently they’ve been tinkering with neutrality by joining PESCO (https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-36409443.html ) - those Mowag APCs and Scorpions weren’t bought to sit in the parking lot in the Curragh! Not to mention the guts of €300m on four new naval patrol vessels....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

What are peoples' thoughts about Uncle Leo getting involved in this? He's expelled a diplomat / possible spy as a result of what happened in the UK a few weeks ago. He said that while Ireland is a neutral country in terms of war, it isn't in terms of assassinations and chemical weapons. I'm not really sure there are shades of neutrality as he suggests.

---

You're right. I think it brings our professed neutrality into serious question. Are we now part of a new Cold War? It's also a bit premature, seeing as the British government has failed to supply any evidence whatsoever to support its claims that Russia was behind the incident. Can the supposed word of British intelligence be trusted (particularly if you look back at its murky historical record in Ireland during the "Troubles" or the more recent deception involved in building a case for invading Iraq)? Why are we undermining our neutrality for them?

I think Leo said something like, "we are neutral in terms of war, but not neutral when it comes to assassinations or chemical weapons". This worries me a little (the assassinations part), as it implies a precedent has been set.

I agree that there seems to be a lack of concrete evidence about Sailsbury, which is worrying. If we believe what we are being told a state (Russia) attempted to kill one of its citizens (who had acquired another citizenship) who it deemed to be an enemy of the state (by being a double agent). The act was conducted on foreign soil (potentially the Zizzi restaurant in Sailsbury) and there was a degree of collateral damage (the daughter and a policeman seem to have been seriously injured)

A few years ago the British used a drone (possibly remotely controlled by an ally) to kill one of its citizens abroad. The citizen was involved with ISIS and so deemed to be an enemy of the state. The strike was conducted on foreign soil (Syria) without the approval or knowledge of that state's government. There was also collateral damage (the citizen's child was killed).

Both scenarios are strikingly similar and has Leo now committed Ireland to act in a similar way (expulsion of diplomats) if the British conduct another drone strike?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Can the supposed word of British intelligence be trusted (particularly if you look back at its murky historical record in Ireland during the "Troubles" or the more recent deception involved in building a case for invading Iraq)? Why are we undermining our neutrality for them?

---

I agree completely. I've lived in the UK for most of my life, it's a great country and most of the people are fantastically friendly, but personally I would never, ever, trust any "hunches" their intelligence agencies had unless they had serious concrete verifiable evidence to back it up. We've seen how wrong they were on Saddam's supposed weapons, but they also thought there was a credible alternative government in waiting in Libya which was completely untrue. The same could be said of Syria, where British Intelligence claimed there was a standing army of 70,000 moderate rebels ready to oust Assad (both the number and the "moderate" nature of this army seems to have been fairly elastic).

I believe Coveney took the action, not the useless TD for Dublin West.

The Irish Government took the only option open to them, which was a token measure. If most other EU states were expelling diplomats, Ireland had to be seen to follow suit. It was all to do with optics, not neutrality.

Seems like a time to bump this thread back up...

It feels like were getting a very one sided view of this. Russia are certainly bad, but they're definitely not alone in that regard.

I was curious when I noticed I had posted in the early part of the thread. It was a John Pilger article, outlining an alternative view of events in the Ukraine. Anyway, decided to have a look for his most recent take and it's along similar lines; http://johnpilger.com/articles/war-i...raw-propaganda

I think we can safely say that Putin is a dangerous man and hungry to solidify his power and protect (and expand) Russian borders. However, it's also safe to say that the motivations of the US/UK/EU/NATO are probably far more concerned with the valuable natural assets of Ukraine than with protecting its people or democracy. I doubt there's a huge desire for a full scale war on any side, but some prodding and poking helps to take the focus away from domestic matters for a while. No doubt Putin will see his actions as quelling any Ukranian desire to join the EU and NATO and any agreement to stand down will be underscored by a commitment from the West to not support Ukraine in joining NATO in particular (as there was in the recent past).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passinginterest

I was curious when I noticed I had posted in the early part of the thread. It was a John Pilger article, outlining an alternative view of events in the Ukraine. Anyway, decided to have a look for his most recent take and it's along similar lines; http://johnpilger.com/articles/war-i...raw-propaganda

---

From that article:

Quote:

---

Ukraine is about to be invaded by Russia - tonight, this week, next week. The sources include an ex CIA propagandist who now speaks for the US State Department and offers no evidence of his claims about Russian actions because "it comes from the US Government".

---

Russia having actually invaded since he wrote that seems to provide a little credibility to the "propaganda".

For me, the only question is whether this situation is more akin to Schleswig-Holstein or the Sudatenland. The western media very much thinks the latter, but let's see. I'm all for self-determination of regions - I think any Irishman should be really - but I'm inclined to think Putin's opinion on it is entirely opportunistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

From that article:

Russia having actually invaded since he wrote that seems to provide a little credibility to the "propaganda".

For me, the only question is whether this situation is more akin to Schleswig-Holstein or the Sudatenland. The western media very much thinks the latter, but let's see. I'm all for self-determination of regions - I think any Irishman should be really - but I'm inclined to think Putin's opinion on it is entirely opportunistic.

---

This has the potential to go beyond Ukraine. Shocked to hear that Putin has mentioned Poland in a potential 'next move'. That would escalate things immeasurably. Military moves like this 80 years ago led to conscription for all of Europe's young men. I think it is safe to say that when this is over (which is hopefully very soon) Europe is going to have to take a long hard look at how they defend their own continent. Can't leave it to America all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

This has the potential to go beyond Ukraine. Shocked to hear that Putin has mentioned Poland in a potential 'next move'. That would escalate things immeasurably. Military moves like this 80 years ago led to conscription for all of Europe's young men. I think it is safe to say that when this is over (which is hopefully very soon) Europe is going to have to take a long hard look at how they defend their own continent. Can't leave it to America all the time.

---

I asked some friends yesterday about whether there will be an impact in the Balkans as this could further embolden Serbia (a strong ally of Russia's and to whom they have been funneling arms) to strike for their own expansion gains in Kosovo, along the B&H border and possibly even the Croatian border (far less likely I suppose given their EU and NATO status). This would tally with the increase in tension and nationalist sentiments observed there recently and particularly in relation to B&H. It doesnt seem to be seen as a legitimate risk currently but I am very interested to see how it plays out.

Regarding the Baltic states, they have every right to be worried and it remains to be seen if it makes sense for Putin to go there. That would be a game changer as they are NATO members and it would likely force some sort of military response. Maybe not straight away for Putin but if China doubles down on their alliance with Russia and even make a push for Taiwan, then i think that gives Putin the green light to do whatever the f**k he wants.