Big Bad Bears - Russia and Putin

[Charlie Darwin]

Explain lovers of Ladyboys please? I'm not one, but I saw a docu-film about it on Channel 4 years ago and just switched off after 10 minutes. Maybe I was just afraid!

People who love ladyboys are not 100% straight, if such a thing even exists.

[mypost]

The hunger-striker can choose not to eat, for example, or the dieter. There's no necessary moral obligation to eat and to eat only, or to survive even. Generally, we choose to eat because we find it pleasurable, just as we do many other things because we also find them pleasurable.

You can choose not to eat. That does not stop your system from craving food. Eating food may or may not be pleasurable, it's often mundane, but it is essential to sustain life.

14 per cent of the population support same-sex unions; that's 20 million people.

So according to your figures, 86% of Russians are straight people, and don't care two hoots about what the west is enraged about. That's more than 4 in every 5 people. I think that settles the "very many" argument tbh.

You're quite right; you don't have to entertain or convince anyone and it's probably not a bad thing that you're not being at all persuasive considering the veiled animus and disdain you're concealing behind the curtain of deflection and pseudo-impartiality. Regardless, I think to so blatantly cheery-pick a convenient select few points with which to deal whilst ignoring to answer the more challenging ones. But that's just me...

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but going by your logic, mustn't you also be saying that a (hetersosexual-identifying) priest's choice, like the homosexual's choice, is an unnatural choice? That they're turning their back on women and reproduction, and therefore denying their nature? Because, according to you, homosexual men are actually attracted to women - no matter how much they deny it - and are behaving unnaturally and anti-instinctively in "choosing" (as if sexual desire could ever be a matter of choice) to turn their backs on women and reproduction. Why is the priest's rejection of his supposed nature considered natural and fine.

Juicy stuff... To where are you referring? And where did you read this? If what you say is true, I would have no reservations in condemning such ignorant attitudes. Regardless, You disapprove of the acceptance of homosexuals and approve of majority Russian attitudes, allegedly because "that's the reality", but can you accept that modern Irish society is changing and tolerate the place of homosexuals in it? That is the societal reality in Ireland now.

According to what? As I said quite some time ago, the social reality in Ireland on the issue is that people accept it more now than they used to, as long as it doesn't directly affect them. I believe that's largely to do with an unquestioning media who have told us that there's nothing wrong with it. However when Ireland's Minister for Health made his declaration on air earlier this year, it was front page news, on every news, chat, and current affairs shows on all networks for 48 hours, (declared on the same day as obviously less important news such as two killed in a Midlands car crash) and it was the talking point across the nation. If there was nothing wrong with it, it would not be on Page 21, let alone Page 1. While the vast majority of parents still want a traditional family, don't want their offspring to be different and be therefore subject to a lifetime of comment and firefighting. You may not accept that, and that is your right, but that is the reality. For all the so-called acceptance, if it's on your own doorstep, self interest kicks in. Hence why the Russians have their law, and 86% of the population support it.

As you may have gathered, I did not identify the nationality concerned. That will remain the case. I read it recently in a national newspaper, there are no online links available. But as you clearly hate discrimination, may I move on to a bigger discrimination issue in Russia, and that is racism. Now if I ask you where you stand, you'll state the obvious answer. In that case, I ask would you actively seek a relationship with a opposite gender person of different nationality/colour, and if not, why not? Yet you'll still condemn Russia as a racist, homophobic shthole.

On priests, they have not decided to turn their back on women. They have joined the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not allow men and women to form relationships. They are the rules, if they were not rules, priests could and would have relationships with women.

You have asked many questions in this thread. I can't answer them all, nor do I have to. I don't do logic, what I do is tell you how things are, rather than what people want them to be. If the questions I do answer are not explained "satisfactorily" enough for you, that's life. No matter how I respond, I can't make you like the answer.

if you think that naturally straight people can just choose to be attracted to men, then...

Apologies, but the above quote had to be edited. Mainly because the edited part is a load of rubbish.

[peadar1987]

You can choose not to eat. That does not stop your system from craving food. Eating food may or may not be pleasurable, it's often mundane, but it is essential to sustain life.

And that doesn't mean it's morally wrong to go without eating if you so choose.

So according to your figures, 86% of Russians are straight people, and don't care two hoots about what the west is enraged about. That's more than 4 in every 5 people. I think that settles the "very many" argument tbh.

And brings us conveniently back to my point you previously ignored. If 86% of Britons were non-catholic, would it be okay if Britain as a nation systematically discriminated against catholics? A simple yes or no.

Apologies, but the above quote had to be edited. Mainly because the edited part is a load of rubbish.

Why is it a load of rubbish, exactly? You apparently think homosexuality is a choice. Could you just decide to be gay? If the answer is no, then what evidence do you have for it being a choice? If it is yes, then you are bi, by definition.

[DannyInvincible]

You can choose not to eat. That does not stop your system from craving food. Eating food may or may not be pleasurable, it's often mundane, but it is essential to sustain life.

Spiritual or religious fasters who practice mind over matter might even disagree with you (on the craving assertion), but what does all this mean anyway? Of what moral significance or consequence is it? Would any of the above morally compel us to behave in a certain way? Are you saying that what you consider instinctive is natural and therefore right, whereas what you consider to be choice is unnatural and therefore wrong? You can't be saying that though, because if that's what you believe to be the case then you'll also disapprove (to go back to previous examples) of footballers, cyclists, dancers and drinkers, no? If you don't, why is what they do OK to you, but then you find the life of a homosexual worthy of disdain? Where's the moral distinction between these various emotional/recreational activities for you? Heterosexual sex isn't even essential to sustain one's life anyway. And I refer to "one's life" in the singular because you've already acknowledged that there is no moral obligation to sustain life generally through reproduction and continuation of our species.

Many humans crave things like alcohol and drugs. Do you advocate the intake of such substances as morally essential then? Do you propose that we give in to our urges in order to be acting in a morally right manner? Is it unnatural for a human to suppress, say, an urge to kill?

So according to your figures, 86% of Russians are straight people, and don't care two hoots about what the west is enraged about. That's more than 4 in every 5 people. I think that settles the "very many" argument tbh.

I thought you believed all Russians were straight people with a small homosexual-identifying minority in denial of their natural heterosexuality choosing to behave "differently"?

And you don't think 20 million people is a significant number of people? Ah now. Seriously?

...as long as it doesn't directly affect them.

I think more and more people are simply accepting it; their acceptance isn't conditional upon this added perverse and innuendo-laden notion of "so long as it doesn't directly affect me" because most reasonable people realise that homosexuality isn't some sort of intrusive or aggressive threat to them or their way of life that they need to fear and guard against. What exactly are you trying to insinuate homosexuals do? How do you envisage homosexuality "directly affecting" non-homosexual-identifying people exactly so that it might erode the sympathy of the majority or necessitate heterosexual-identifying people to make such a daft qualification? How might it realistically "directly affect" the likes of yourself? Gay people, by and large, try to get on with their own private lives and business without encroaching upon the rights of others, just like any other decent citizen.

I believe that's largely to do with an unquestioning media who have told us that there's nothing wrong with it.

What is wrong with it though? You're really skirting around that very crucial question with a lot of wishy-washy nonsense. What's the harm to you and your kin? Why do you personally feel threatened by it?

As you may have gathered, I did not identify the nationality concerned. That will remain the case.

Why's it such a big secret? You seemed to take issue with the notion that the Irish press, public and politicians weren't simultaneously condemning the attitudes of this country, but how can anyone condemn them and their attitudes if we don't know who you're talking about? Sure why not reveal all so that we can scream "discrimination"?

I read it recently in a national newspaper, there are no online links available.

That's convenient, but there's bound to be a reference to this curious claim online somewhere, surely?

But as you clearly hate discrimination, may I move on to a bigger discrimination issue in Russia, and that is racism. Now if I ask you where you stand, you'll state the obvious answer. In that case, I ask would you actively seek a relationship with a opposite gender person of different nationality/colour, and if not, why not? Yet you'll still condemn Russia as a racist, homophobic shthole.

To suggest I'm condemning Russia as a "racist, homophobic sh*thole" is a ridiculous oversimplification of my communications with you and a total misrepresentation.

Anyway, let's not jump to conclusions. You're only showing your sorry xenophobic/racist self up now. If you automatically assume that I and others would have a problem with being in a relationship with "a [sic] opposite gender person of different nationality/colour", I'm afraid you're letting your own mask slip and betraying your own prejudices. It's pretty apparent this would be a big problem for you. I have expanded my horizons beyond white comely Irish maidens dancing at the cross-roads, believe it or not. I didn't think that was all that unusual, to be honest... Is it?

As it happens, I'm in a monogamous relationship with someone of a different nationality now, which is why I wouldn't be presently seeking a relationship with anyone else (regardless of their cultural background), but that doesn't mean that I haven't actively sought a relationship with someone of a different nationality and/or ethnicity/colour in the past. To put your mind to rest, I have. Not that the national/ethnic/colour difference was a motivating reason or anything for that either. The difference just happened to be and was no more than an irrelevant detail, if you indeed need to classify it or assign it some status. I have never sought out a relationship with someone because of the colour of their skin, be it because it was the same as or different from my own. What a really weird question to ask... I can only assume it was another clumsy attempt to deflect from the rather chaotic and incoherent web you've spun for yourself.

Even if someone didn't actively seek out relationships with certain people or members of ethnic minorities, it wouldn't necessarily mean they were racist, nor would it mean they supported political discrimination, nor would it mean they were anti-equality, nor would it even mean they had something in particular (including of a racial nature) against a specific person to whom they didn't feel attracted (or people ethnically/culturally similar to them). It might simply mean they were more attracted to someone else who they knew at a particular point in time, and not necessarily because of their race, or maybe they just weren't interested in seeking out anyone, or maybe they looked for other more important qualities in people besides the colour of their skin and someone of similar ethnicity just so happened to tick the right boxes. You present a false dichotomy. There can be a middle ground with alternative explanations (besides racism) for why someone might happen to be attracted to a particular someone who happens to be of similar ethnicity and not to someone else who happens to be of a different ethnicity.

My cousin married an Indian girl two years ago. There were plenty of Irish people at the wedding, including myself, delighted for both of them. In fact, it hadn't even crossed my mind that the concept might have been as issue for some people in this day and age until you offered me a glimpse into your warped world of veiled bile and bigotry.

On priests, they have not decided to turn their back on women. They have joined the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not allow men and women to form relationships. They are the rules, if they were not rules, priests could and would have relationships with women.

But, you must think those rules and the resulting choices of certain men to abide by them is unnatural, no? It's what you've been arguing all along in relation to the "choice" of homosexuals to abide by their "rules".

You think homosexuality is a choice and you hold it against homosexuals who "make the choice" of not forming relationships with the opposite sex. If you think it's a choice, then if this was not their choice (just as if it were the priest's choice not to abide by the rules of the priesthood), couldn't homosexual men likewise have relationships with women? What's the difference in principle here considering you believe both homosexuality and the priesthood are matters of choice?

You have asked many questions in this thread. I can't answer them all

I'm simply asking you to clarify or elaborate on your position. If you can't defend what you're saying, maybe it's a sign it's built on suspect foundations?

I don't do logic

I can see that. Are you admitting to being a willing irrational hypocrite then?

what I do is tell you how things are

Far from it. You're doing very little more than spouting unfounded superstition, misinformation and prejudice.

[Lionel Ritchie]

The pro-Russian fighters in Ukraine are a volunteer army, and are fighting a conventional state-backed army. Not all members of the formal Russian army are currently on service, so are free to go about their business like anyone else, and some of them have gone to help defend their brothers across the border.

It doesn't mean that Putin has ordered them to do so.

Up until just a few days ago I'd have largely agreed with this. Now I'm not so sure. I felt the Russian support for the seperatists was there but was largely passive and they were just happy enough to turn a blind eye to Russian regulars, ex-servicemen and volunteers cross the border and join in the fight to, as you put it, 'help defend their brothers'. I even thought the BUK1 business with MH-17 was a careless anomaly and unintended consequence rather than form.

But now, with reports coming in from many disparate sources talking to people from the Ukrainian side (as you point out a coventional state backed army -who are having their arses kicked) who are saying the sheer volume of heavy weaponry available to the seperatists can't be explained away by captured bases. They're saying the seperatists weapons are more modern than theirs and that they've all the ammo they could possibly want. I don't know if Putin is directly pulling the strings -but he seems to know a guy who knows a guy -and he's certainly doing little to dampen it down.

Don't know what good binoculars would have done, the flight was well above the clouds. But they were launching missiles at what they viewed as "enemy" aircraft for several days in the run up to the Malaysian Airlines crash, and they had radar to track aircraft flying over the area. Believing that this was another aircraft out to get them, they launched their missile. As far as I know, they haven't launched any since.

The weather on July 17th was a mixed bag of end of summer weather -sunny spells and thunder showers. They might well have been able to see MH-17 with the naked eye. They might have panicked and fired knowing that once they'd switched on their radar their target could see them as well. My own suspicion is that they thought they could see a Ukrainian Ant-26 cruising at around 18-20,000ft OR the much commented Su-25 ground-attack plane at 12-14,000ft (which would go some way to explaining the itchy trigger finger) when they were actually looking at a much larger aircraft far higher up. Once the missile is launched it sets its own proximity fuse. The only shoot down I've heard of since MH-17 involved a Mig-29 (possibly 2 of them) which the Ukrainians are saying were shot at from inside Russia.

The casualties though are still piling up. Negotiations are being held in a pro-Russian country though, and any peace agreement will be agreed on Russian terms. With the Yanks and NATO unwilling/unable to help, Ukraine really doesn't have much to bargain with, so they may just have to let Luhansk and Donetsk shape their own future.

That would appear to be the size of it. Will it end there though?

[Spudulika]

Lionel, I'm listening/reading/watching a number of different sides to all of this and both my post and you are correct. I agree that there is an element of truth to the arms/weapons coming in from Russia, it doesn't surprise me in the least. In fact I am surprised more has not been done (but I would be truly disgusted if it was). I find both the Russian and anti-Russian rhetoric sickening and last week it really came home to me. Our Ambassador was visiting and I accompanied him to VSU and listened to his speech. In the question and answer session it was 5 plants standing up and trying to insult both him, the EU, the "west" and to get themselves noticed as "heroes". One clown went so far as to pretend to be a refugee, but when he spoke about media repression in Ukraine.....and him a journalist in Russia!

I do not know where this will end. The USA almost caused Nuclear War when Cuba got some missiles next door, I'm living very close to the Ukraine border - our region borders on it - so should Ukraine be in NATO? This was the big push by the Maidan crowd, EU and NATO membership. So people all over the region are worried. When the Maidan crowd had their coup and took power, they immediately moved to remove Russian language from schools and rights of ethnic minorities (including Tatars, Turks, Greeks). So it was scare tactics all around.

It is wrong what all sides are doing, but this is not Yugoslavia. It's not Syria or Iraq. Russia has nuclear capability and while I doubt if it will come to it, it just seems to be ramping up and up.

[mypost]

And brings us conveniently back to my point you previously ignored. If 86% of Britons were non-catholic, would it be okay if Britain as a nation systematically discriminated against catholics? A simple yes or no.

What do you want me to say? You're asking me to comment on hypothetical scenarios that will never happen. This is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Spiritual or religious fasters who practice mind over matter might even disagree with you (on the craving assertion), but what does all this mean anyway? Of what moral significance or consequence is it?

You brought the subject up.

You can choose to fast or not fast. Your system doesn't care, it still demands that you eat food. If you don't eat, you can suffer anything from starvation, to anorexia and in extreme cases, you lose your life. So people eventually have to eat.

I thought you believed all Russians were straight people with a small homosexual-identifying minority in denial of their natural heterosexuality choosing to behave "differently"?

And you don't think 20 million people is a significant number of people?

As stated earlier, more than 4 in every 5 Russians are straight people. That clearcut majority shows that not "very many" people as you claimed, are bothered by the issue.

I think more and more people are simply accepting it; their acceptance isn't conditional "so long as it doesn't directly affect me" because most reasonable people realise that homosexuality isn't some sort of intrusive or aggressive threat to them or their way of life that they need to fear and guard against.

I've already explained why several times. I don't have to again.

Why's it such a big secret? You seemed to take issue with the notion that the Irish press, public and politicians weren't simultaneously condemning the attitudes of this country, but how can anyone condemn them and their attitudes if we don't know who you're talking about? Sure why not reveal all so that we can scream "discrimination"?

That's convenient, but there's bound to be a reference to this curious claim online somewhere, surely?

No there isn't. I've already said I'm not going to identify it, so there's nothing more to add.

Anyway, let's not jump to conclusions. You're only showing your sorry xenophobic/racist self up now. If you automatically assume that I and others would have a problem with being in a relationship with "a [sic] opposite gender person of different nationality/colour", I'm afraid you're letting your own mask slip and betraying your own prejudices. It's pretty apparent this would be a big problem for you. I have expanded my horizons beyond white comely Irish maidens dancing at the cross-roads, believe it or not. I didn't think that was all that unusual, to be honest... Is it?

As said earlier, it doesn't matter to me what you've done. And I don't need to know your whole life history in order to verify it. The thread isn't about you, or me for that matter. But I don't have an issue with you dating opposite gender people that are non-Irish. What you can't argue with is that most people will only date those from their own race, black or white, and from their own local areas, as it's easier for them to go with what they know.

I'm simply asking you to clarify or elaborate on your position. If you can't defend what you're saying, maybe it's a sign it's built on suspect foundations?

I think my stance on this issue is pretty clear by now and I have defended the main points. Sorry for not elaborating to your satisfaction, but once again, this post is bombarded with questions and waffle, many of which I can't and/or don't want to respond to for numerous reasons.

You're doing very little more than spouting unfounded superstition, misinformation and prejudice.

I've given you an insight into Russian culture. It's clear you want them to conform to what the culture is in this part of the world. Well unfortunately for you, Russia is different. The country is different, the culture is different, the people are different. They are a stubborn race of people, and not interested in being lectured by foreigners on how their culture is apparantly "wrong".

[peadar1987]

What do you want me to say?

I would love for you to say it would be completely wrong, and then to realise that this makes a mockery of your claims that it's okay for Russia to discriminate against homosexuals because lots of Russians are homophobes, but I'd settle for a straight yes or no.

You're asking me to comment on hypothetical scenarios that will never happen. This is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

They may be hypothetical, but they are absolutely relevant to the debate at hand.

If you are bothered by the fact that it will never happen, I can give you a real life example.

In the 1930s in Germany, the majority of people were antisemitic, and mistrusted the Jews, without any great desire to exterminate them (the original plan was to deport them to Madagascar [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan]). Were the Germans within their rights to discriminate against the Jewish people? To attack them? To boycott their businesses and those who stood up for them?

[DannyInvincible]

You brought the subject up.

You can choose to fast or not fast. Your system doesn't care, it still demands that you eat food. If you don't eat, you can suffer anything from starvation, to anorexia and in extreme cases, you lose your life. So people eventually have to eat.

I brought it up to demonstrate the flaws in your reasoning; as an example of something over which we have choice, even if we need to do it to survive, yet there's no necessary moral obligation to eat, nor is it immoral to diet, fast or hunger-strike. You're not really demonstrating to me why it is significant for the purposes of our debate on the supposed righteousness of homophobia or anti-homosexual discrimination. Am I to assume then that your repetition of the above is finally an admission that this matter is of no significance to the debate?

As stated earlier, more than 4 in every 5 Russians are straight people. That clearcut majority shows that not "very many" people as you claimed, are bothered by the issue.

Please pinpoint where I used the term "very many". I said "significant number"; not "very many". A fifth is a significant portion, especially when it amounts to 20 million people. It's a significant minority. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that, there's no point really continuing to argue with you over it.

I've already explained why several times. I don't have to again.

Explained what several times? Why it would be rational and reasonable for people to assume that homosexuality is intrusive or aggressive? You haven't explained that at all. I don't think that insulting and irrational innuendo-laden caveat is at all important in many people's acceptance of homosexuality. Please stop dodging. Your posts are getting more and more meaningless, the more you dodge.

No there isn't. I've already said I'm not going to identify it, so there's nothing more to add.

Well, I don't know what to make of that. It's simply odd. I don't know why you're making such a big deal about this and being babyishly stubborn about something so inconsequential as providing details on the location of where you sourced your alleged information.

As said earlier, it doesn't matter to me what you've done. And I don't need to know your whole life history in order to verify it. The thread isn't about you, or me for that matter. But I don't have an issue with you dating opposite gender people that are non-Irish. What you can't argue with is that most people will only date those from their own race, black or white, and from their own local areas, as it's easier for them to go with what they know.

If you weren't interested, why did you ask me personally? I was simply stating my own position on a proposition that was ridiculous to me. I can't speak with any degree of certainty for other people, so don't try and give the impression that I was trying to argue something on their behalf when all I have been doing is pointing out entirely plausible alternative explanations to you.

Even if what you said was true - that people tend to go with what they know - that wouldn't mean the majority of people are racists. It would just mean that many people might prefer engagement/interaction with what is most convenient or with what they feel culturally most comfortable or at home. That's not racism. Remind me of the relevance of this matter again...

I think my stance on this issue is pretty clear by now and I have defended the main points. Sorry for not elaborating to your satisfaction, but once again, this post is bombarded with questions and waffle, many of which I can't and/or don't want to respond to for numerous reasons.

You haven't defended your main points at all. There are post-loads of absolutely crucial questions throughout this thread that remain unanswered, so let's not try and kid people. What would those reasons be anyway?

I've given you an insight into Russian culture. It's clear you want them to conform to what the culture is in this part of the world. Well unfortunately for you, Russia is different. The country is different, the culture is different, the people are different. They are a stubborn race of people, and not interested in being lectured by foreigners on how their culture is apparantly "wrong".

More misrepresentation. I don't advocate or endorse conformity. Russians can believe what they want and be "traditionalists" if they want; I'm just pointing out the irrationality of such attitudes. People can choose to be irrational if they like.

Peadar, I think mypost has just unwittingly produced his own contradicting analogy in his defence of Russia and Russians being different in their unwillingness to embrace/tolerate homosexuality. Of course, he has no time for people criticising Russian difference (their attitutes on homosexuality), but he has all the time in the world for prejudice and people discriminating against homosexual difference.

How does this read, mypost?:

I've given you an insight into LGBT issues. It's clear you want homosexuals to conform to what the supposed "norm" is in your world. Well, unfortunately for you, homosexuals are different. The lifestyle is different, the culture is different, the people are different. They are a stubborn group of people, and not interested in being lectured by homophobes on how their culture is apparently "wrong".

[Mr A]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0227/683424-nemtsov/

An obvious western plot to make Putin look bad.

[Charlie Darwin]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0227/683424-nemtsov/

An obvious western plot to make Putin look bad.

A spectacular case of whataboutery that would make a Unionist blush.

[Crosby87]

Kasparov is on the war path on twitter.

[Spudulika]

I met Nemtsov in 2013 and again late last year. He was ex-KGB, a friend of Putin and one of the fake parties supported by the Kremlin. I do not know who murdered him, but he had many, many enemies. He was involved in a lot of business in the lead up to the Olympics and while he was trumpeted by the "liberals", he was not the most trustworthy. He is from the same mould as Navalny, but still, he was intelligent, funny and actually did care about Russia, but along the lines of the Russian nationalists. His anti-war stance regarding Ukraine was heartfelt (I saw this last year with him). The "west" will love this!

[Spudulika]

A spectacular case of whataboutery that would make a Unionist blush.

It's Max Keiser......he's as bad as any of the goons who write for the slop buckets of news in the UK or Ireland. Keiser has his moments, but generally he just spouts nonsense and gets well paid by Russia Today.

[Crosby87]

I enjoyed the book "Midnight in Siberia" by NPRs David Greene, Spuds. He takes that Trans Siberian railroad all over looking for stories, third class.

[Charlie Darwin]

It's Max Keiser......he's as bad as any of the goons who write for the slop buckets of news in the UK or Ireland. Keiser has his moments, but generally he just spouts nonsense and gets well paid by Russia Today.

And TV3.

[Crosby87]

If it was Putin it was so brazen though.

[mypost]

They may be hypothetical, but they are absolutely relevant to the debate at hand.

If you are bothered by the fact that it will never happen, I can give you a real life example.

In the 1930s in Germany...

They are hypothetical scenarios. Your example is 80 years old. The world has moved on. The dfa.ie travel advice website, clarifies the Russian legal position.

I brought it up to demonstrate the flaws in your reasoning; as an example of something over which we have choice, even if we need to do it to survive, yet...

You could have just stopped waffling there, because those words in bold sort the issue.

explained what several times? You haven't explained that at all.

Yes I have. You clearly haven't understood what I'm saying. Hence all the questions, none of which I am obliged to answer.

Well, I don't know what to make of that. It's simply odd. I don't know why you're making such a big deal about this.

It was brought up to show the hypocrisy of telling the Russians that what they do is discrimination, but when the same social attitudes prevail in more western countries, nobody here bats an eyelid.

I was simply stating my own position on a proposition that was ridiculous to me. I can't speak with any degree of certainty for other people, so don't try and give the impression that I was trying to argue something on their behalf when all I have been doing is pointing out entirely plausible alternative explanations to you.

Waffling you mean.

You then accused me of being xenophobic, because I brought up what is a huge issue in Russia, and a perfectly valid one to raise in a thread like this.

Even if what you said was true - that people tend to go with what they know - that wouldn't mean the majority of people are racists. It would just mean that many people might prefer engagement/interaction with what is most convenient or with what they feel culturally most comfortable or at home. That's not racism.

Discriminating against people specifically because they are a colour you don't want, or because of where they live or where they are from, is racism.

You haven't defended your main points at all. What would those reasons be anyway?

I have defended them repeatedly and firmly. You just have to read them.

More misrepresentation. I don't advocate or endorse conformity.

Yes you are. You believe in a one size fits all lifestyle, where everyone is equal, no matter how different they decide to be, or how they promote and/or celebrate that difference. All explanations of the alternative view are met with a waffling series of ifs, buts, and maybes, and a tonne of questions that can't, in some cases shouldn't, be answered. My belief is that all adults are ultimately responsible for the choices and decisions they make, and can't be seen as and treated equally if they make the wrong decisions, in whatever walk of life it is.

I think he has no time for people criticising Russian difference

I do have time, and have to listen to it unopposed for long enough. But just as they have the right to complain about Russians, Russians have the right to ignore those complaints and live as per their culture.

They and other nationalities will tell us that we drink too much. As a nation we recognise that, but it's our culture. We won't let foreigners tell us paddies and biddies how to drink, so we will just carry on boozing to within an inch of our lives and ignore them.

How does this read?

It reads like someone who has finally ran out of quizzes and hit the wall.

[mypost]

Up until just a few days ago I'd have largely agreed with this. Now I'm not so sure.

The weather on July 17th was a mixed bag of end of summer weather -sunny spells and thunder showers. They might well have been able to see MH-17 with the naked eye. They might have panicked and fired knowing that once they'd switched on their radar their target could see them as well. My own suspicion is that they thought they could see a Ukrainian Ant-26 cruising at around 18-20,000ft OR the much commented Su-25 ground-attack plane at 12-14,000ft (which would go some way to explaining the itchy trigger finger) when they were actually looking at a much larger aircraft far higher up. Once the missile is launched it sets its own proximity fuse. The only shoot down I've heard of since MH-17 involved a Mig-29 (possibly 2 of them) which the Ukrainians are saying were shot at from inside Russia.

That would appear to be the size of it. Will it end there though?

I couldn't tell one airline from another at 10k ft from the eye, the only way of tracking it woild be radar, and they had targeted that plane as it would flew over. Several military aircraft were attacked in mid air in the days leading up to the Malaysian Airlines crash after all.

It's easy for the west to demand a ceasefire, but their territory isn't under threat. The conflict is very like the one in NI, only the weapons are heavier, and the casualties are higher. But it still boils down to power and control over disputed territory.

Putin emerged from the Minsk talks happy as larry, having got Poroshenko to sign Luhansk, Donetsk and the surrounding regions away. He once threatened Barroso that he could have Kiev in two days if he so wanted, but he's probably happy enough with the current situation.

Lionel, I'm listening/reading/watching a number of different sides to all of this and both my post and you are correct. I find both the Russian and anti-Russian rhetoric sickening and last week it really came home to me. Our Ambassador was visiting and I accompanied him to VSU and listened to his speech. In the question and answer session it was 5 plants standing up and trying to insult both him, the EU, the "west" and to get themselves noticed as "heroes". One clown went so far as to pretend to be a refugee, but when he spoke about media repression in Ukraine.....and him a journalist in Russia!

I do not know where this will end. The USA almost caused Nuclear War when Cuba got some missiles next door, I'm living very close to the Ukraine border - our region borders on it - so should Ukraine be in NATO? This was the big push by the Maidan crowd, EU and NATO membership. So people all over the region are worried. When the Maidan crowd had their coup and took power, they immediately moved to remove Russian language from schools and rights of ethnic minorities

It took 20 years for Croatia to join the EU, but the EU and NATO don't really want Ukraine imo. Their handling of the crisis has been amateurish at best, leaving Russia holding all the cards to do as it pleases. But if Ukraine was free of Russian influence, they would be within their rights to remove the obligation to learn Russian. The people would probably rather learn English, where they can be understood all over the world, than be obliged to learn a language they don't want. It's not like here, where you have to learn Irish at the expense of more widely spoken languages.

One thing I admired the Maidan demonstrators for is their perseverance to see their demands through to a conclusion, even in -20c with no electricity or transport running, they were still willing to do so. In Ireland, everyone turns up, shouts a few slogans, hands in a petition, then get the scoops in and heads off. Then life returns to as it was, and little or nothing changes on the ground.

As for our ambassador, if Putin won't listen to Obama and Moon, he isn't really interested in listening to what he has to say either. Putin has 9 more years in power to run. Anyone who seriously challenges his authority in that time can make it as far as the Volga, but not the Kremlin.

Last summer, Khordokovsky was released. The running joke at the time was that Putin gave Khordokovsky to the world and kept Ukraine for himself. As many have found to their cost in Russia down the years, getting on the wrong side of an ex-KGB head isn't the wisest thing to do.

[Crosby87]

Do any of you guys think its possible that some of these oligarchs will band together and take out Putin?