[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A Russian militiaman discusses jihadists: They have motivation; Russia and the West do not (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/6/2016 10:02:55 PM EDT
|
Thought you guys would appreciate this - a volunteer who has lived for years in Africa, and fought in Ukraine, discusses his thoughts about why Islam is slated to take over the world (translated by yours truly):
Vitaly “Africa” - By the way, about "Allahu Akbar!", "Inshallah", "Bismillah" and such. To put it mildly,I loathe Islam, Muslims, and Arabs in general (regardless of religious affiliation). But at the same time, I can’t deny that they have a knack for such short and powerful phrases, when one or two words can express feelings, sensations and thoughts worth a paragraph of text. Well, thoughts are often in short supply for those guys, but still. [Russians] do not have that - our swearing tradition, however rich, isn’t quite the same thing. Nothing like that in English, either. Maybe it depends more on worldview than specific language, not sure. Whatever it is, the towelheads are way ahead of us in terms of creating slogans for the "brave new world". Because something tells me that the true “men of the future” won’t be astronauts on Mars, or a transvestites stuck on welfare, but AK-toting bearded dudes in worn camo. And we are unprepared for this new world. At all. Not even in terms of [ideology]. That's a total disaster, of course. But even in terms of mass media, where we should dominate (I’m using “we” in the broad sense here - "white brothers", all that. Well, I'm an idealist. Most times.). Simply compare CNN or RT to [ISIS’s] Al-Hayat Media Center production - no contest, really [1]. And who do you imagine when you hear "insurgent"? [snip] Say, you’re riding a bus, and the radio blurbs: "An attack by EPATS militants killed five police officers." Cthulhu knows - who the heck EPATS are and which country they’re from. So, who you imagine? Ulster Catholics? No? Minutemen from Alabama? Probably not. [Me and my buddies] in the DPR militia? Unlikely. You probably immediately picture a smelly, bearded bastard wearing a martyr’s bandana, nothing but Sharia in his brain and a severed head in his hands. And why do you picture that? Because the smelly, bearded bastards have everything ready to create a solid image. [Ideology], gestures, symbols. And we don’t. Why do you think [DPR assault battalion] shouted "Allahu Akbar!" at the Donetsk airport? Why did we shout it at Yampol, [fighting a tank brigade with a half-dozen RPGs]? Well, yes, of course it was to troll the Nazzies [2]. But not only that, not only... What else to scream when you're in a fight, and emotions need release? ["For motherland, for Stalin! ..."? Seventy years too late for that... "For Gazprom and Sber-Bank!"?] Not very encouraging ... "Die, bitches!" And "F... this sh..."? Well, yes, we swore profusely, but one can’t get by on swearing alone, something is lacking. In short, you can find plenty of examples yourself. The point is, since the bright friendly future has been canceled, we need to prepare for a dark non-friendly one, and we need to take this preparation very seriously. Especially the so-called “creative class”, [if modern hipsters can be called that] - singers, psychologists, poets, marketers, etc., they really need to start doing something . Because if we are forced to adopt the symbols of the enemy, we will lose. And this is not a friendly Western quarrel, which generally end with small concessions and renewed peace. This a dispute over land. Specifically, over who’s gonna put whom in the ground. Further reading in THIS GD topic: Russian ex-colonel about what he saw over a year and a half in Syria (he mentions ideology too, and resisting insurgents). A militia medic explaining how they found out the current generation is ill-suited for war, mostly mentally etc. Notes: About the author - the guy is an honest-to-God NeoNazi from what I can tell, but that doesn’t change the fact he’s smart and knows how to write. He actually fought in Ukraine throughout the “hot phase” of the conflict, and wrote a book about it later. The piece above is from that book (I won’t be translating the rest anytime soon - it is interesting for understanding Ukraine in 2014, but not really broadly applicable). Also, before anyone makes inane comments about “Russian nazis” and the conflict - yes, there were some NeoNazis on both republican and nationalist sides there, but IIRC the biggest far-right unit for the republicans was platoon-sized (“Rusich”) and was disbanded once rebels got more organized, whereas nationalists had, and still have, entire regiments made up of Hitler fans (“Azov” and similar). [1] As for AL-Hayat being superior to CNN and RT - at least judging by the number of volunteers coming to ISIS, compared to their SAA and Kurdish opponents, Vitaly seems to be correct in saying they a lot more successful in motivating direct action. [2] About “trolling the nationalists”(Nazzies, nazis) - he means tricking them into thinking they’re facing “Chechen mercenaries”. By the way, the irrational fear West Ukrainians had of (largely mythical) islamist insurgents re-affirms the author’s main point. (Yes, there were bearded highlanders fighting for DPR, but they were mostly Christian North Ossetians - jihadists from Chechnya and elsewhere fight on the nationalist side because they hate Russia.) |
|
How can a people not know when thy're beaten? Would you Quintus? Would I? |
|
Quoted:
Oh we got plenty of mother fucking motivation but our fucking leaders have less motivation than they have balls. AR15 crowd? Ok, maybe. The general public? Doubt it. Look, I can't really judge the US, because it hadn't had a war on its soil in a while, but look at Ukraine/Russia and Syria. In the former, fighters were stuck with Soviet slogans (republicans), bullshit nationalism (Kiev) or personality cult (Putin). In the latter, it's jihadis (8th century ideology) vs Assad (another personality cult). Nowhere there's a single armed group fighting for "Western democracy" or whatever that bullshit is. No one believes in that anymore. Syria's FSA is a joke, Russia's pro-Western opposition is hilariously small, and Ukraine's "democratic revolution" brought them unprecedented ruin and resentment, just like Libya and everywhere else. There's simply nothing for people to rally around, worldwide. They're not turning to Islam because it's the best game in town, but because it's the ONLY game in town when it comes to real ideology. And I'm not sure what the alternative is. What can CNN offer an unemployed Arab to dissuade him from becoming a hero? |
|
Quoted:
We have the industrial base, the military, the warriors to snuff the motherfuckers out. This needs to be all out unlimited war. Turn our military loose. One order: Win And it's not going to happen. Read the link in the OP: Russian retired colonel - "[According to] American data, they [did 8800 airstrikes], spent $5 billion, and claim to have killed 5000 terrorists. So each terrorist cost million dollars at least. According to our Russian Ministry of Defense, in four thousand airstrikes we killed several hundred terrorists - that proportion sounds more realistic. So you understand, 4000 airstrikes, let's say it’s even a thousand terrorists... The cost of killing a terrorist is a incomparable to the cost of hiring one. A terrorist recruit costs a hundred dollars, plus hundred dollars to give him a rifle. And war is an economic contest - if we spend $1,000,000 to kill a terrorist whom the enemy hire for $200, we are losing the war." Air Force is already running out of munitions. |
|
You ever track back who runs and funds zerohedge? |
|
THANK YOU ;)) Quoted:
You ever track back who runs and funds zerohedge? I actually post on a number of websites, people call my buddies "putin's trolls" - but if paid trolls exist, I never met em and they do less work than volunteers. Most "from Russia with love" sites are purely volunteer, the big ones have some donations, but I don't think it's enough to have any sort of permanent staff. Russia Insider is the only exception - funded by some millionaire heir, and they're still 90% volunteer. I don't imagine places like zerohedge and globalresearch are any different. Heck, globalresearch used a couple of my items on Ukraine at some point. |
|
Quoted:
You ever track back who runs and funds zerohedge? Quoted:
You ever track back who runs and funds zerohedge? Serious question: Have you looked into who owns the major media networks in the US, and who their close friends are? I haven't found a single news source which, when investigated for national loyalty, doesn't set off a massive number of alarms. I haven't looked into One America News though. I'm afraid to, because I like them too much to find out something bad, which I completely expect given my experience with the rest. |
|
Quoted:
Serious question: Have you looked into who owns the major media networks in the US, and who their close friends are? I haven't found a single news source which, when investigated for national loyalty, doesn't set off a massive number of alarms. I haven't looked into One America News though. I'm afraid to, because I like them too much to find out something bad, which I completely expect given my experience with the rest. Quoted:
Quoted:
You ever track back who runs and funds zerohedge? Serious question: Have you looked into who owns the major media networks in the US, and who their close friends are? I haven't found a single news source which, when investigated for national loyalty, doesn't set off a massive number of alarms. I haven't looked into One America News though. I'm afraid to, because I like them too much to find out something bad, which I completely expect given my experience with the rest. I have. I don't trust any of them, really. I go ask Air Force maintainers and other actual SMEs for answers to questions like this I sure don't go straight to fucking Russia. |
|
Quoted:
Serious question: Have you looked into who owns the major media networks in the US, and who their close friends are? I haven't found a single news source which, when investigated for national loyalty, doesn't set off a massive number of alarms. I haven't looked into One America News though. I'm afraid to, because I like them too much to find out something bad, which I completely expect given my experience with the rest. Quoted:
Quoted:
You ever track back who runs and funds zerohedge? Serious question: Have you looked into who owns the major media networks in the US, and who their close friends are? I haven't found a single news source which, when investigated for national loyalty, doesn't set off a massive number of alarms. I haven't looked into One America News though. I'm afraid to, because I like them too much to find out something bad, which I completely expect given my experience with the rest. Oh, from my foreign policy perspective, US mass media push the US government point of view very strongly. The whole "moderate opposition in Syria" myth, for example, or "democracy in Ukraine" - it takes pretty massive dedication to keep the story going when even your allies in-country long stopped believing in it. There are two problems with this, however: First, I think that US government policy is not necessarily in the interests of the American people. Having islamists take over Syria the way they took Libya, or, you know, pushing Russia into massive nuclear re-armament - I think these results are the exact opposite of what common Americans need. The mass media are supposed to keep the government in check, and they completely don't. Second, there are plenty of subjects where the mass media act against the interests of American people simply because they are profit-driven. Take race-baiting, for example - they aren't doing it because mass media corps somehow want to destroy USA. They're publishing hoaxes like "Hands up don't shoot", and other BS, because it keeps people glued to TVs. If they don't, someone else will, and they do out of business. The fact that it leads to riots, hate, and rips society apart, isn't in the quarterly revenue reports. |
|
Quoted:
I have. I don't trust any of them, really. I go ask Air Force maintainers and other actual SMEs for answers to questions like this I sure don't go straight to fucking Russia. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You ever track back who runs and funds zerohedge? Serious question: Have you looked into who owns the major media networks in the US, and who their close friends are? I haven't found a single news source which, when investigated for national loyalty, doesn't set off a massive number of alarms. I haven't looked into One America News though. I'm afraid to, because I like them too much to find out something bad, which I completely expect given my experience with the rest. I have. I don't trust any of them, really. I go ask Air Force maintainers and other actual SMEs for answers to questions like this I sure don't go straight to fucking Russia. I agree. I'm simply pointing out that the allegiance of all major media is probably not to US interests. Russian news sources are good for only one thing: Coverage of issues Western sources won't touch. Doesn't change the fact that they will bias said coverage in the interest of Moscow. |
|
Quoted:
I agree. I'm simply pointing out that the allegiance of all major media is probably not to US interests. Russian news sources are good for only one thing: Coverage of issues Western sources won't touch. Doesn't change the fact that they will bias said coverage in the interest of Moscow. Honestly - and this is coming from someone who gets called "Putin's troll" on a routine basis - official coverage is pretty shit from any side, simply because the format is shit and no MSM source has any desire to actually inform the public. CNN tells you Syria is about "moderate opposition" fighting to bring "democracy" (lol x 100), Russians say they're bombing ISIS in NE Syria and on the verge of closing Turkish border (there is no ISIS in NE Syria, and they won't close the border anytime soon). Reading different MSM is good for realizing there are many sides to every story, but to find out what's really going on you have to do a ton of digging yourself. I wrote a bit about it, but it's a hard topic to explain. |
|
Weren't they fighting Germanic tribes? 
|
|
Quoted:
Weren't they fighting Germanic tribes? Quoted:
They were, but that brings up something interesting. I was watching or reading something the other day and it was talking about the Viking raids and settlements in England. While they were talking about the weapons and such they said the main advantage that the Vikings had is that they believed that they could only get into Valhalla (their heaven/paradise/etc) by dying bravely in battle. So while these Viking warriors believed they were scoring points in the afterlife by killing their enemies and dying heroically the Englishmen just wanted to survive and get back to their wives and children. Their conclusion was that gave the Vikings such a huge advantage in battle. Of course they were eventually defeated/integrated, but I couldn't help but think of the parallels with Jihadists and their Paradise with 72 virgins for dying in battle or suicide bombing. It's a very effective religion, even the Nazis noticed this and made comments about how you could use it to create fearless warriors and such. |
|
Quoted:
They were, but that brings up something interesting. I was watching or reading something the other day and it was talking about the Viking raids and settlements in England. While they were talking about the weapons and such they said the main advantage that the Vikings had is that they believed that they could only get into Valhalla (their heaven/paradise/etc) by dying bravely in battle. So while these Viking warriors believed they were scoring points in the afterlife by killing their enemies and dying heroically the Englishmen just wanted to survive and get back to their wives and children. Their conclusion was that gave the Vikings such a huge advantage in battle. Of course they were eventually defeated/integrated, but I couldn't help but think of the parallels with Jihadists and their Paradise with 72 virgins for dying in battle or suicide bombing. It's a very effective religion, even the Nazis noticed this and made comments about how you could use it to create fearless warriors and such. Quoted:
Quoted:
They were, but that brings up something interesting. I was watching or reading something the other day and it was talking about the Viking raids and settlements in England. While they were talking about the weapons and such they said the main advantage that the Vikings had is that they believed that they could only get into Valhalla (their heaven/paradise/etc) by dying bravely in battle. So while these Viking warriors believed they were scoring points in the afterlife by killing their enemies and dying heroically the Englishmen just wanted to survive and get back to their wives and children. Their conclusion was that gave the Vikings such a huge advantage in battle. Of course they were eventually defeated/integrated, but I couldn't help but think of the parallels with Jihadists and their Paradise with 72 virgins for dying in battle or suicide bombing. It's a very effective religion, even the Nazis noticed this and made comments about how you could use it to create fearless warriors and such. 
The Vikings weren't defeated. They successfully conquered England in 1066. Loki fucking a reindeer, read a book. |
|
Quoted:
The Vikings weren't defeated. They successfully conquered Britain in 1066. Loki fucking a reindeer, read a book. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were, but that brings up something interesting. I was watching or reading something the other day and it was talking about the Viking raids and settlements in England. While they were talking about the weapons and such they said the main advantage that the Vikings had is that they believed that they could only get into Valhalla (their heaven/paradise/etc) by dying bravely in battle. So while these Viking warriors believed they were scoring points in the afterlife by killing their enemies and dying heroically the Englishmen just wanted to survive and get back to their wives and children. Their conclusion was that gave the Vikings such a huge advantage in battle. Of course they were eventually defeated/integrated, but I couldn't help but think of the parallels with Jihadists and their Paradise with 72 virgins for dying in battle or suicide bombing. It's a very effective religion, even the Nazis noticed this and made comments about how you could use it to create fearless warriors and such.
The Vikings weren't defeated. They successfully conquered Britain in 1066. Loki fucking a reindeer, read a book. Not a specialist on the period, but my understanding was that actual Vikings were defeated by the English at Stamford Bridge. The Normans that conquered England were mixing with French locals and living under the French king for ~5 generations at that point. Calling them "Vikings" is a bit like calling American colonists "Englishmen". However, the Vikings did conquer most of England some time before then, in the 9th century, but that didn't last. |
|
Quoted:
Not a specialist on the period, but my understanding was that actual Vikings were defeated by the English at Stamford Bridge. The Normans that conquered England were mixing with French locals and living under the French king for ~5 generations at that point. Calling them "Vikings" is a bit like calling American colonists "Englishmen". However, the Vikings did conquer most of England some time before then, in the 9th century, but that didn't last. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were, but that brings up something interesting. I was watching or reading something the other day and it was talking about the Viking raids and settlements in England. While they were talking about the weapons and such they said the main advantage that the Vikings had is that they believed that they could only get into Valhalla (their heaven/paradise/etc) by dying bravely in battle. So while these Viking warriors believed they were scoring points in the afterlife by killing their enemies and dying heroically the Englishmen just wanted to survive and get back to their wives and children. Their conclusion was that gave the Vikings such a huge advantage in battle. Of course they were eventually defeated/integrated, but I couldn't help but think of the parallels with Jihadists and their Paradise with 72 virgins for dying in battle or suicide bombing. It's a very effective religion, even the Nazis noticed this and made comments about how you could use it to create fearless warriors and such.
The Vikings weren't defeated. They successfully conquered Britain in 1066. Loki fucking a reindeer, read a book. Not a specialist on the period, but my understanding was that actual Vikings were defeated by the English at Stamford Bridge. The Normans that conquered England were mixing with French locals and living under the French king for ~5 generations at that point. Calling them "Vikings" is a bit like calling American colonists "Englishmen". However, the Vikings did conquer most of England some time before then, in the 9th century, but that didn't last. The Normans were very much Vikings, from lifestyle, to laws, to warmaking. They conquered northern France and made themselves Norseman Lords over the locals. They ruled as gods of war, they made the locals deal with them on Norse terms. They got bored and decided to take over England too. They were called NorMans for a reason. I guess if all the Syrians in Germany took over part of German and called it New Syrian, making themselves the ruling class, you'd say they weren't Syrians and are really Germans? |
|
Quoted:
The Normans were very much Vikings, from lifestyle, to laws, to warmaking. They conquered northern France and made themselves Norseman Lords over the locals. They ruled as gods of war, they made the locals deal with them on Norse terms. They got bored and decided to take over England too. They were called NorMans for a reason. I guess if all the Syrians in Germany took over part of German and called it New Syrian, making themselves the ruling class, you'd say they weren't Syrians and are really Germans? As I said, I'm not a specialist on the period, so you may very well be right. However, I'd argue that, say, 5th generation Chinese-Americans are very significantly Americanized, even if they live in Chinatown. Looks to me like Normans were feudal, Christian, and mixed with Frenchmen by the time conquest of England happened. Plus there were 3 parts to William's army - Bretons, French, and Normans, so to say that England was conquered by Vikings isn't entirely correct anyway. |
|
Quoted:
The Vikings weren't defeated. They successfully conquered Britain in 1066. Loki fucking a reindeer, read a book. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were, but that brings up something interesting. I was watching or reading something the other day and it was talking about the Viking raids and settlements in England. While they were talking about the weapons and such they said the main advantage that the Vikings had is that they believed that they could only get into Valhalla (their heaven/paradise/etc) by dying bravely in battle. So while these Viking warriors believed they were scoring points in the afterlife by killing their enemies and dying heroically the Englishmen just wanted to survive and get back to their wives and children. Their conclusion was that gave the Vikings such a huge advantage in battle. Of course they were eventually defeated/integrated, but I couldn't help but think of the parallels with Jihadists and their Paradise with 72 virgins for dying in battle or suicide bombing. It's a very effective religion, even the Nazis noticed this and made comments about how you could use it to create fearless warriors and such.
The Vikings weren't defeated. They successfully conquered Britain in 1066. Loki fucking a reindeer, read a book. I've read a couple and what's you're saying happened would've been incredibly difficult since Duke William (later known as "the Conqueror", he got that name because he Conquered things) landed from Normandy round about that same year. He was descended from Viking raiders, although he was pure Norman. In any event, it's pretty obvious I'm referring to the first Viking raids a couple hundred years before these events. Which were largely successfully, until some larger armies were defeated like at Battle of Edington (see: The Great Heathen Army or watch "Vikings" on History for another couple season). Then of course came the integration part when I said "defeated/integrated". By 1066, the period you're referring to, nearly everyone has some Viking in them and nearly everyone was Christian. As you may or may not know Christianity had no special bonus for getting into Valhalla so it's obvious you knew the time period I'm referring to and just wanted to sound smart on the internet and that's cool too, but also irrelevant to my point about the parallels between the old Norse religions and modern extremist Islam. |
|
Quoted:
I've read a couple and what's you're saying happened would've been incredibly difficult since Duke William (later known as "the Conqueror", he got that name because he Conquered things) landed from Normandy round about that same year. He was descended from Viking raiders, although he was pure Norman. In any event, it's pretty obvious I'm referring to the first Viking raids a couple hundred years before these events. Which were largely successfully, until some larger armies were defeated like at Battle of Edington (see: The Great Heathen Army or watch "Vikings" on History for another couple season). Then of course came the integration part when I said "defeated/integrated". By 1066, the period you're referring to, nearly everyone has some Viking in them and nearly everyone was Christian. As you may or may not know Christianity had no special bonus for getting into Valhalla so it's obvious you knew the time period I'm referring to and just wanted to sound smart on the internet and that's cool too, but also irrelevant to my point about the parallels between the old Norse religions and modern extremist Islam. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were, but that brings up something interesting. I was watching or reading something the other day and it was talking about the Viking raids and settlements in England. While they were talking about the weapons and such they said the main advantage that the Vikings had is that they believed that they could only get into Valhalla (their heaven/paradise/etc) by dying bravely in battle. So while these Viking warriors believed they were scoring points in the afterlife by killing their enemies and dying heroically the Englishmen just wanted to survive and get back to their wives and children. Their conclusion was that gave the Vikings such a huge advantage in battle. Of course they were eventually defeated/integrated, but I couldn't help but think of the parallels with Jihadists and their Paradise with 72 virgins for dying in battle or suicide bombing. It's a very effective religion, even the Nazis noticed this and made comments about how you could use it to create fearless warriors and such.
The Vikings weren't defeated. They successfully conquered Britain in 1066. Loki fucking a reindeer, read a book. I've read a couple and what's you're saying happened would've been incredibly difficult since Duke William (later known as "the Conqueror", he got that name because he Conquered things) landed from Normandy round about that same year. He was descended from Viking raiders, although he was pure Norman. In any event, it's pretty obvious I'm referring to the first Viking raids a couple hundred years before these events. Which were largely successfully, until some larger armies were defeated like at Battle of Edington (see: The Great Heathen Army or watch "Vikings" on History for another couple season). Then of course came the integration part when I said "defeated/integrated". By 1066, the period you're referring to, nearly everyone has some Viking in them and nearly everyone was Christian. As you may or may not know Christianity had no special bonus for getting into Valhalla so it's obvious you knew the time period I'm referring to and just wanted to sound smart on the internet and that's cool too, but also irrelevant to my point about the parallels between the old Norse religions and modern extremist Islam. Viking does not equal Heathen and Heathen does not equal Viking. Viking is a profession. Not a religon. Diesel: "Damn you tailors and your Jihad!" |
|
Quoted:
As I said, I'm not a specialist on the period, so you may very well be right. It just so happens that I am and being History major got me an $8/hr job at a factory after I graduated...but at least I can pretend to know things on the internet...which is just as good really. Anyway, Duke William II was about as much "Viking" as I am or you are. At that point there was "Viking" DNA from Scotland to deep into Russia (remember Harald got his start protecting Byzantine kings in Constantinople). Everybody could claim to be descended Viking raiders and they were probably half right, but Christianity had largely usurped the old pagan religions in those areas at that point and thus it's completely irrelevant to what I was saying. |
|
Quoted:
Viking does not equal Heathen and Heathen does not equal Viking. Viking is a profession. Not a religon. Diesel: "Damn you tailors and your Jihad!" Quoted:
Quoted:
I've read a couple and what's you're saying happened would've been incredibly difficult since Duke William (later known as "the Conqueror", he got that name because he Conquered things) landed from Normandy round about that same year. He was descended from Viking raiders, although he was pure Norman. In any event, it's pretty obvious I'm referring to the first Viking raids a couple hundred years before these events. Which were largely successfully, until some larger armies were defeated like at Battle of Edington (see: The Great Heathen Army or watch "Vikings" on History for another couple season). Then of course came the integration part when I said "defeated/integrated". By 1066, the period you're referring to, nearly everyone has some Viking in them and nearly everyone was Christian. As you may or may not know Christianity had no special bonus for getting into Valhalla so it's obvious you knew the time period I'm referring to and just wanted to sound smart on the internet and that's cool too, but also irrelevant to my point about the parallels between the old Norse religions and modern extremist Islam. Viking does not equal Heathen and Heathen does not equal Viking. Viking is a profession. Not a religon. Diesel: "Damn you tailors and your Jihad!" Who the hell said it was a religion? I specifically said "old norse religions". I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. You are talking about a period of time completely different than I am. Simple as that. I don't even understand why you felt the need to bring up Christian Dukes and Lords when I said something about Viking raiders on the English coast. |
|
Quoted:
It just so happens that I am and being History major got me an $8/hr job at a factory after I graduated...but at least I can pretend to know things on the internet...which is just as good really. Anyway, Duke William II was about as much "Viking" as I am or you are. At that point their was Viking DNA from Scotland to deep into Russia (remember Harald got his start protecting Byzantine kings in Constantinople). Everybody could claim to be "Vikings" and they were probably half right, but Christianity had largely usurped the old pagan religions in those areas at that point and thus it's completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Quoted:
Quoted:
As I said, I'm not a specialist on the period, so you may very well be right. It just so happens that I am and being History major got me an $8/hr job at a factory after I graduated...but at least I can pretend to know things on the internet...which is just as good really. Anyway, Duke William II was about as much "Viking" as I am or you are. At that point their was Viking DNA from Scotland to deep into Russia (remember Harald got his start protecting Byzantine kings in Constantinople). Everybody could claim to be "Vikings" and they were probably half right, but Christianity had largely usurped the old pagan religions in those areas at that point and thus it's completely irrelevant to what I was saying. William the Bastard (William the Second) has a direct lineage to Scandinavia. We know the raids that brought his family tree to northern France. There's was no "claim" to be the child of Vikings, he simply was, attested by the facts of his birth. Also, by nature of his actions, he, too, was a Viking. Again, Viking is a job, not a faith nor even a specific people. |
|
Quoted:
Who the hell said it was a religion? I specifically said "old norse religions". I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. You are talking about a period of time completely different than I am. Simple as that. I don't even understand why you felt the need to bring up Christian Dukes and Lords when I said something about Viking raiders on the English coast. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've read a couple and what's you're saying happened would've been incredibly difficult since Duke William (later known as "the Conqueror", he got that name because he Conquered things) landed from Normandy round about that same year. He was descended from Viking raiders, although he was pure Norman. In any event, it's pretty obvious I'm referring to the first Viking raids a couple hundred years before these events. Which were largely successfully, until some larger armies were defeated like at Battle of Edington (see: The Great Heathen Army or watch "Vikings" on History for another couple season). Then of course came the integration part when I said "defeated/integrated". By 1066, the period you're referring to, nearly everyone has some Viking in them and nearly everyone was Christian. As you may or may not know Christianity had no special bonus for getting into Valhalla so it's obvious you knew the time period I'm referring to and just wanted to sound smart on the internet and that's cool too, but also irrelevant to my point about the parallels between the old Norse religions and modern extremist Islam. Viking does not equal Heathen and Heathen does not equal Viking. Viking is a profession. Not a religon. Diesel: "Damn you tailors and your Jihad!" Who the hell said it was a religion? I specifically said "old norse religions". I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. You are talking about a period of time completely different than I am. Simple as that. I don't even understand why you felt the need to bring up Christian Dukes and Lords when I said something about Viking raiders on the English coast. Because actual Norse history is not divided into Chapter 1: Vikings and boats and Chapter 2: Christian Kings. It is a flow like a river (haha, Norse pun), and one which Williams family is a perfect example of. They did not stop being Vikings because they changed Thor into Jesus. They stopped being Vikings when they stopped conquering the shit out of people and expanding, which as of 1066 was still happening. Fun fact: Leif Erikson lived only a few years prior to William the Conqueror (1020 vs 1028), was a Christian, discovered North America, and was definitely a Viking. |
|
Quoted:
William the Bastard (William the Second) has a direct lineage to Scandinavia. We know the raids that brought his family tree to northern France. There's was no "claim" to be the child of Vikings, he simply was, attested by the facts of his birth. Also, by nature of his actions, he, too, was a Viking. Again, Viking is a job, not a faith nor even a specific people. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As I said, I'm not a specialist on the period, so you may very well be right. It just so happens that I am and being History major got me an $8/hr job at a factory after I graduated...but at least I can pretend to know things on the internet...which is just as good really. Anyway, Duke William II was about as much "Viking" as I am or you are. At that point their was Viking DNA from Scotland to deep into Russia (remember Harald got his start protecting Byzantine kings in Constantinople). Everybody could claim to be "Vikings" and they were probably half right, but Christianity had largely usurped the old pagan religions in those areas at that point and thus it's completely irrelevant to what I was saying. William the Bastard (William the Second) has a direct lineage to Scandinavia. We know the raids that brought his family tree to northern France. There's was no "claim" to be the child of Vikings, he simply was, attested by the facts of his birth. Also, by nature of his actions, he, too, was a Viking. Again, Viking is a job, not a faith nor even a specific people. Viking was a job technically, but it was created and done by a specific people. If those specific people land in France and decide they like the wine and religion, hang around for a few generations that doesn't make their grand children (great-great grand children?) Scandinavians or Vikings. One set of my grand parents were Polish Jews, I don't go around calling myself a Polish Jew. I was born and raised in America, by Americans. If I was born and raised in Normandy, by Normans, then that's what I'd be. Hell you go back far enough you can claim to be an African bushman, and because they used fire and you build fires you're now a "bushman". That's crazy. And for like the 4th time now, we both know that I'm talking about a totally different time period than you are. If you want to talk about Christian Kings of England then that's great, I'm right there with you. I like the Tudors, we can talk about them. But my original post was obviously referring to the initial Viking raids on England hundreds of years before you popped up with your "NO WAY BRO WILLIAM WAS SO NORWEGIAN HE ATE SALTED COD 5 TIMES A DAY!" And that is wonderful but it has fuck all to do with what I'm talking about and now we've went around and around on this and you just seem to want to keep arguing about something that I wasn't even talking about. Do you want me to admit that Scandis settled in France and later became Normans? Ok, they did. I'm not going to call King William a Viking, I'm going to call him King William the Conqueror just like everybody else does. There is no evidence of him following any of the old Norse religious philosophy that I brought up earlier, he didn't rape and pillage, he took what he thought was his and fought his ass off for it. If that's all it takes to call someone a Viking then Jesus half the Kings in history are "Vikings". |
|
Quoted:
Viking was a job technically, but it was created and done by a specific people. If those specific people land in France and decide they like the wine and religion, hang around for a few generations that doesn't make their grand children (great-great grand children?) Scandinavians or Vikings. One set of my grand parents were Polish Jews, I don't go around calling myself a Polish Jew. I was born and raised in America, by Americans. If I was born and raised in Normandy, by Normans then that's what I'd be. Hell you go back far enough you can claim to be an African bushman, and because they used fire and you build fires you're now a "bushman". That's crazy. And for like the 4th time now, we both know that I'm talking about a totally different time period than you are. If you want to talk about Christian Kings of England then that's great, I'm right there with you. I like the Tudors, we can talk about them. But my original post was obviously referring to the initial Viking raids on England hundreds of years before you popped up with your "NO WAY BRO WILLIAM WAS SO NORWEGIAN HE ATE SALTED COD 5 TIMES A DAY!" And that is wonderful but it has fuck all to do with what I'm talking about and now we've went around and around on this and you just seem to want to keep arguing about something that I wasn't even talking about. Do you want me to admit that Scandis settled in France and later became Normans? Ok, they did. I'm not going to call King William a Viking, I'm going to call him King William the Conqueror just like everybody else does. There is no evidence of him following any of the old Norse religious philosophy that I brought up earlier, he didn't rape and pillage, he took what he thought was his and fought his ass off for it. If that's all it takes to call someone a Viking then Jesus half the Kings in history are "Vikings". Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As I said, I'm not a specialist on the period, so you may very well be right. It just so happens that I am and being History major got me an $8/hr job at a factory after I graduated...but at least I can pretend to know things on the internet...which is just as good really. Anyway, Duke William II was about as much "Viking" as I am or you are. At that point their was Viking DNA from Scotland to deep into Russia (remember Harald got his start protecting Byzantine kings in Constantinople). Everybody could claim to be "Vikings" and they were probably half right, but Christianity had largely usurped the old pagan religions in those areas at that point and thus it's completely irrelevant to what I was saying. William the Bastard (William the Second) has a direct lineage to Scandinavia. We know the raids that brought his family tree to northern France. There's was no "claim" to be the child of Vikings, he simply was, attested by the facts of his birth. Also, by nature of his actions, he, too, was a Viking. Again, Viking is a job, not a faith nor even a specific people. Viking was a job technically, but it was created and done by a specific people. If those specific people land in France and decide they like the wine and religion, hang around for a few generations that doesn't make their grand children (great-great grand children?) Scandinavians or Vikings. One set of my grand parents were Polish Jews, I don't go around calling myself a Polish Jew. I was born and raised in America, by Americans. If I was born and raised in Normandy, by Normans then that's what I'd be. Hell you go back far enough you can claim to be an African bushman, and because they used fire and you build fires you're now a "bushman". That's crazy. And for like the 4th time now, we both know that I'm talking about a totally different time period than you are. If you want to talk about Christian Kings of England then that's great, I'm right there with you. I like the Tudors, we can talk about them. But my original post was obviously referring to the initial Viking raids on England hundreds of years before you popped up with your "NO WAY BRO WILLIAM WAS SO NORWEGIAN HE ATE SALTED COD 5 TIMES A DAY!" And that is wonderful but it has fuck all to do with what I'm talking about and now we've went around and around on this and you just seem to want to keep arguing about something that I wasn't even talking about. Do you want me to admit that Scandis settled in France and later became Normans? Ok, they did. I'm not going to call King William a Viking, I'm going to call him King William the Conqueror just like everybody else does. There is no evidence of him following any of the old Norse religious philosophy that I brought up earlier, he didn't rape and pillage, he took what he thought was his and fought his ass off for it. If that's all it takes to call someone a Viking then Jesus half the Kings in history are "Vikings". Was Leif Erikson a Viking? Yes? But he was Christian and didn't really do much raping and pillaging, how could he be a Viking? Because people who know what Viking actually means know he's a Viking. Try to accurately use "Viking" in the future, and reference the Heathen faith when it is the Heathen faith you are speaking of, and you won't have to defend your mix-matching of terms and shallow presentation and Nordic history. |
|
Quoted:
Was Leif Erikson a Viking? Yes? But he was Christian and didn't really do much raping and pillaging, how could he be a Viking? Because people who know what Viking actually means know he's a Viking. Try to accurately use "Viking" in the future, and reference the Heathen faith when it is the Heathen faith you are speaking of, and you won't have to defend your mix-matching of terms and shallow presentation and Nordic history. No, he wasn't. He may have participated in a raid or two in his younger days but he seems to me to mostly be an explorer and a halfway decent church-builder. His father might fall under your definition of Viking but as for Leif that seems to be a very small aspect of his life. If it's a job, then he was the part-time grocery-bagger "I'm working my way through high school" of Vikings. And for the 5th time. I specifically said "old Norse religions" and mentioned "Valhalla" in my original post. It was obvious to everyone but you that I talking about the earliest encounters between Vikings and Englishmen. I simply cannot have made it any clearer than I did. You're the one who started trying to connect everything to everyone and bringing up all of these later characters and events that had no relevance to anything I said. |
|
Thanks for the interesting discussion on Vikings to you both; talking about the point that started it, i.e. that belief in Valhalla made Vikings so successful, I can add a quote by the medic linked in the OP:
"... A doctor is always considered a military man, who is obliged to help his nation in case of a catastrophe, civil war, and such. What happened here in this situation was completely the opposite - [most fled or avoided getting involved]. … The doctors who [supported the nationalists] left to the enemy-occupied territories, but there weren't many of those. The majority of pro-Kiev doctors were so-called “successful businessmen” ... . I guess “businessman” in this case is a definition for somebody who does not see a higher purpose for a doctor than earning money. But as I said, those were the minority. The majority ... were simply under-developed as persons. They did not have higher moral motivation. In order for a person to go to war, he has to have values higher than serving himself - because even the motivation of saving your children does not really work, as taking your children and fleeing somewhere is a lot better than leaving them and going to war. So, in order to go to war, one needs to have higher motivation - such as Motherland, Duty, the memory of their ancestors, etc. And right now most people don't have these motivations, they are being suppressed. You know Maslow's pyramid - where the basic level is physical necessities, and higher levels are abstract, etc. So, right now, the higher levels of this pyramid are being cut off. Mass media at all levels are propagating only individualism - I would say that most people are not atheist****, they pray to a God, it’s just that God is themselves. And the when they feel that they could be killed - that's the ultimate fear for them. And that creates a huge problem for the survival of society at large." But there is also another quote from the same piece - not all ideologies are useful: "One needs to understand politics and ideology to avoid accidentally joining the fascists that are dismantling your country. A lot of people that joined the Maidan revolution under anti-oligarch, anti-corruption ideals - they were initially for united Russian nation, for equality and unity of all ethnicities, and then they ended up in the ranks of the Right Sector and subverted by [ultra-nationalist] propaganda." |
|
The problem with jihadists is that in order to truly wipe it from the face of the earth. We must drop to their level of conflict. More like a battle on the streets between two rival gangs, than drones, precision missiles and bombs. That will inflict a pretty good death toll on our side which people don't have the stomach for. Right now people prefer this soft version of war. Just bomb them a couple times so the citizens think we're doing something.
We are also so tied up in oil with Saudi Arabia, and we know that that is where all the money's coming from. I do believe you can carpet bomb the ever living shit out of them, but unless we stop the flow of money the surge of radical Islam will continue to be a threat. |
|
Quoted:
The problem with jihadists is that in order to truly wipe it from the face of the earth. We must drop to their level of conflict. More like a battle on the streets between two rival gangs, than drones, precision missiles and bombs. That will inflict a pretty good death toll on our side which people don't have the stomach for. Right now people prefer this soft version of war. Just bomb them a couple times so the citizens think we're doing something. We are also so tied up in oil with Saudi Arabia, and we know that that is where all the money's coming from. I do believe you can carpet bomb the ever living shit out of them, but unless we stop the flow of money the surge of radical Islam will continue to be a threat. (sorry for speaking in quotes, but I'd rather repeat the words of a military specialist who spent over a year in Syria, rather than pull opinions out of my ass) The same colonel linked in the OP: "First and foremost, we need to publicly declare who the real enemies are. ISIS, other terrorists - they are just tools, they are not the real enemy. The real enemies are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, USA, and Turkey, or rather people within their governments who are funding and arming the terrorists. Jihadists are just a tool, a hammer. Biting or punching a hammer is completely useless. Even if you manage to break one without breaking your own bones, they would just take another - hammers are cheap. So we need to fight the problem at its source. " PS. Yes, he does blame USA, but well US (or rather State Dept / Hillary) did hand Libya to the islamists, and continues to diplomatically support / ship TOWs to jihadis in Syria... Plus the guy spent a long time living with Syrians and basically has their views (according to BBC-ordered poll something like 80% of Syrians believe ISIS is a "USA and foreign created group"). However, recently there were articles saying many within the Army/intelligence leadership are against the whole support-jihadists-to-dismantle-Syria nonsense. No idea how true that one is. |
|
Quoted: Read the link in the OP: Russian retired colonel - "[According to] American data, they [did 8800 airstrikes], spent $5 billion, and claim to have killed 5000 terrorists. So each terrorist cost million dollars at least. According to our Russian Ministry of Defense, in four thousand airstrikes we killed several hundred terrorists - that proportion sounds more realistic. So you understand, 4000 airstrikes, let's say it’s even a thousand terrorists... The cost of killing a terrorist is a incomparable to the cost of hiring one. A terrorist recruit costs a hundred dollars, plus hundred dollars to give him a rifle. And war is an economic contest - if we spend $1,000,000 to kill a terrorist whom the enemy hire for $200, we are losing the war." Air Force is already running out of munitions. Quoted: Quoted: We have the industrial base, the military, the warriors to snuff the motherfuckers out. This needs to be all out unlimited war. Turn our military loose. One order: Win And it's not going to happen. Read the link in the OP: Russian retired colonel - "[According to] American data, they [did 8800 airstrikes], spent $5 billion, and claim to have killed 5000 terrorists. So each terrorist cost million dollars at least. According to our Russian Ministry of Defense, in four thousand airstrikes we killed several hundred terrorists - that proportion sounds more realistic. So you understand, 4000 airstrikes, let's say it’s even a thousand terrorists... The cost of killing a terrorist is a incomparable to the cost of hiring one. A terrorist recruit costs a hundred dollars, plus hundred dollars to give him a rifle. And war is an economic contest - if we spend $1,000,000 to kill a terrorist whom the enemy hire for $200, we are losing the war." Air Force is already running out of munitions. Hard to argue with that point |
|
He makes some good points but it just seems somewhat simplistic in his views.
The fact we don't have a slogan, or a unified ideology doesn't mean that the Jihadis are going to win the war IMHO . . . I'm guessing years of living in combat theaters gives you tunnel vision to some extent. |
|
Another historic parallel, somewhat far-fetched:
Romans using barbarians as mercenaries, then the same barbarians turning on them later. Or Saxons being invited to Britain as hired muscle, and eventually conquering their masters. Nowadays, of course, no one is gonna hire Jaysh-Al-Islam to patrol the local mall, but with the world being much more connected, it may no longer be required. Helping jihadists win in Afganistan, Bosnia, Libya, or Ukraine (see link in the OP) means they'll have a base to stage attacks from, and these days it's only a couple plane rides away. There is a piece I translated on the subject sometime back, it's also rather one-sided, but interesting nonetheless. Here's the LINK and some quotes: Former head of "Nativ" special service, Yakov Kedmi, a famous anti-Soviet protester, a soldier and a diplomat, appeared on Israeli news channel "ITON-TV" soon after the Paris attacks. I think ... his main point will remain relevant for at least a decade - "If you use terrorists, you’ll have to live with them afterwards." Kedmi: "I want to ask - why this hysteria, all of a sudden? French blood - it is more red? Does it have a different composition? Is it more valuable? Three hundred thousand people have been killed in Syria! [In a war] supported by the French, and most of the countries who are weeping today. A Russian plane recently exploded. We’re not totally sure it was a terrorist attack, but everyone treated it as one. Where was the hysteria? And there, more people died, more women and children. What's the matter, then? Is this the first terrorist attack in Paris? This is the second terrorist attack in Paris? This is the tenth act of terrorism in Europe? Why does everyone care all of a sudden?" ... Yakov Kedmi: "The problem is that terrorism is a constant factor [in modern life]. But when the terrorists are killing non-Europeans, or Europeans from the Balkans - it's OK. When terrorists kill Russian citizens - well, no big deal, serves them right. When Israelis are killed - it is a struggle for a brighter future, of other nations or religions. But the French … - why are they more valuable than us?!" Interviewer: "[The security services could not prevent this] ... The same thing could happen in the States or Russia, or anywhere. How do we live now?" Kedmi: "I have some unpleasant news. [Terrorists] will strike wherever they can. And they can reach anywhere. Because it is impossible to put a policeman next to every French citizen, and a drone above. Right? The nature of the problem has nothing to do with the actions of the French secret service, or law enforcement. It’s about the actions of their government. About the actions of Europe, France, the United States, and all the others who have long been flirting with terrorism. With terrorists. Who divide terrorists into moderate, useful ones, and the bad ones. Moderates become bad when they attack their masters. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, during the Balkan wars, and in Chechnya - it was moderate. From moderate to good***. When bin Laden funded terrorist training camps in Chechnya - he was moderate! When al-Qaeda fighters attacked Serbs in Bosnia, burning churches and villages - they were the moderates!" Interviewer: "When Basayev fought against the Georgians, the Russian GRU supported him." Kedmi: "Basayev did not fight in Georgia as a member of a terrorist organization! He was a [Deputy Minister of Defense] in the Abkhazian army, planning conventional warfare. This is completely different. He turned to terrorism later - it does not matter which country he served years prior. But when Basayev was organizing terrorist attacks during the Chechen war - [the West and the Gulf states] supported him! As a terrorist! And Bin Laden was supported - as a terrorist! And Al Bagdadi was supported, back when he carried out terror attacks against Assad!" Interviewer: “But [Israel] created Hamas, right?" Kedmi: "We did not create them. We supported them, back in the day. But this is quite different. We never supported Hamas as a terrorist organization. We merely did not have the foresight to predict that this non-profit religious/aid organization will be transformed into terrorists. But we never supported terrorists! ... Interviewer: "There is information that in Syria, ISIS created some special “Khorasan” school that prepares saboteurs especially for terrorist attacks abroad, and they are recruiting people. Do you know anything about these things?" Kedmi: "Who cares!? How does this relate to the problem of terrorism!? Any terrorist organization, if allowed to capture territory, creates structures that are involved in the preparation and organization of various acts of terrorism. What do I care what is the name of this base? What's the difference where it is, and how does this or that army call that place? The problem is terrorism itself." The Interviewer: "Could the terrorist attack in Paris be in response to a bombing raid by the French airforce two days ago?" Kedmi: "Who cares! This... nonsense - studying why exactly a terrorist organization decided to conduct a terrorist attack in this place, at this time, under what pretext... Terrorism is what they do, by definition. Therefore, from a political point of view, it does not matter: where and how, and the name of the triggerman. Those details are for the intelligence services, law enforcement and the army. What does this have to do with the problem of terrorism as a whole? The problem is that any type of terrorist activity needs to be declared illegal. All bases of terrorist organizations must be destroyed. And the terrorists themselves must be destroyed. Physically. Until this is the norm - all the discussions are empty talk, entertaining the public or journalists with the musings of this or that "expert", who discusses the kinds of terrorist bases and the names of their celebrity commanders... The terrorism which we face today has been created by all those who have enabled these organizations to emerge and develop. Who funded them. Who allowed them to act. Why ISIS decided to strike now, and not a day earlier or later - that’s not important. I heard one expert, a Russian one - he said that they did it in memory of St. Bartholomew massacre! You know, I seriously doubt they even know what that is. Others say it was before the G20 summit. You know, terrorists are not meeting production deadlines - “Produce X acts of terror before the G20”. The root of the problem is elsewhere. It’s in Saudi Arabia and Qatar creating Jabhat Al-Nusra, ISIS, etc., giving them money. It’s in Americans and Europeans indirectly supporting them, [and handing Libya to the islamists via a NATO bombing campaign against the secular government - ed.]. It's Turkey giving them free passage, bases in its territory, paying money for their oil. It's Libyan weapons that were shipped to Syria via Turkey, and fell into the hands of terrorists - that happened due to the short-sightedness of the dim-witted American, Italian, and French governments! The very same French****! That is the real problem." |
|
Quoted:
He makes some good points but it just seems somewhat simplistic in his views. The fact we don't have a slogan, or a unified ideology doesn't mean that the Jihadis are going to win the war IMHO . . . I'm guessing years of living in combat theaters gives you tunnel vision to some extent. Here's my take on it: Yes, when it comes to truly "conventional" warfare you're probably right. The author was fighting in a civil war within a deeply corrupt, failing state (Ukraine today has a lot in common with Central African or South American countries, rather than first world), so motivation was much more important than hardware. Strelkov came in with 51 Crimean militiamen armed with AKs and a handful non-functioning RPGs, armed the locals with a few thousand SKSs and WWII AT rifles bought from the local army depots, and stumped the nationalist army for like 3 months. Yeah, the untrained militiamen were heroic and all that, but I doubt they would hold out 3 days against, say, the regiment of US Rangers with CAS. However, fighting terrorism isn't the same as fighting a conventional war. SAA in Syria still outgun the islamists pretty heavily (some army bases are holding out for years while entirely surrounded, for example), but winning a field battle isn't really possible in that sort of conflict. Again, I'm not a specialist on Syria (and Ukraine doesn't really have an urban insurgency/terror campaign, chiefly because republican leadership and their Kremlin allies are against it), but it seems to me the whole "fighting ISIS" deal is going to be a lot more similar to fighting the Mexican cartels or say IRA, rather than WWII-style battles. And motivation/ideology is very important in that case. Heck, USA had way fewer restrictions in Vietnam than fighting ISIS today, and still had to withdraw... |
|
Quoted: You Russians can have Syria, hell you can have the ME, I will even root for you. But when you start going into Ukraine, well I hope you catch an RPG up the ass.  Without going too deep into the conflict's history, let's just say Russian involvement is similar to US helping Texans in 1830s, except way more justified for a number of reasons (yeah, CNN paints a different picture, but they also believe in "moderate opposition" in Syria, "Hands Up Don't Shoot", and probably fairies and dragons). Also, Obama gov backing the nationalists is one of the major reasons the whole mess happened in the first place. Now Ukraine is total shit and Russia is heading down in the North Korea direction (except it has 10,000 nukes, not 10). Good job Biden/McCain/US State Dept. |
|
Deus vult? 
|
|
Quoted:
Without going too deep into the conflict's history, let's just say Russian involvement is similar to US helping Texans in 1830s, except way more justified for a number of reasons (yeah, CNN paints a different picture, but they also believe in "moderate opposition" in Syria, "Hands Up Don't Shoot", and probably fairies and dragons). Also, Obama gov backing the nationalists is one of the major reasons the whole mess happened in the first place. Now Ukraine is total shit and Russia is heading down in the North Korea direction (except it has 10,000 nukes, not 10). Good job Biden/McCain/US State Dept. Quoted:
Quoted: You Russians can have Syria, hell you can have the ME, I will even root for you. But when you start going into Ukraine, well I hope you catch an RPG up the ass. Without going too deep into the conflict's history, let's just say Russian involvement is similar to US helping Texans in 1830s, except way more justified for a number of reasons (yeah, CNN paints a different picture, but they also believe in "moderate opposition" in Syria, "Hands Up Don't Shoot", and probably fairies and dragons). Also, Obama gov backing the nationalists is one of the major reasons the whole mess happened in the first place. Now Ukraine is total shit and Russia is heading down in the North Korea direction (except it has 10,000 nukes, not 10). Good job Biden/McCain/US State Dept. They're supporting an illegal band of usurpers, bent on pushing out the rightful landowners and rulers with violence, and looking towards the intention of becoming a subordinate part of Russia? |
|
Quoted:
They're supporting an illegal band of usurpers, bent on pushing out the rightful landowners and rulers with violence You're talking about the guys that overthrew the elected President right? The Nazis? Right Sector? Ukraine was bought with pints of Polish blood, and gallons of Russian....with a cup or two of a couple other countries in between. Crimea was bought with even more Russian blood. They've been paid for already. They had every right to take back all their land. Just like Germany took Saarland before Hitler went a little clay crazy, France had to admit "Well, it's always been theirs anyway" and did nothing. They should consider themselves lucky that Russia only wants the parts that want to be Russian, speak Russian, and voted for the pro-Russian president. Because there would never even be a Ukraine if it wasn't for a few million dead Russians. If they want to take back the two or three counties that either house their bases or are 99% Russian then they should just take them. Hell, that's what we would do. Lord knows the US has invaded and claimed countries/land with far less claim. That said, Manifest Destiny is still a valid foreign policy imo. |
|
Quoted:
They're supporting an illegal band of usurpers, bent on pushing out the rightful landowners and rulers with violence, and looking towards the intention of becoming a subordinate part of Russia? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: You Russians can have Syria, hell you can have the ME, I will even root for you. But when you start going into Ukraine, well I hope you catch an RPG up the ass. Without going too deep into the conflict's history, let's just say Russian involvement is similar to US helping Texans in 1830s, except way more justified for a number of reasons (yeah, CNN paints a different picture, but they also believe in "moderate opposition" in Syria, "Hands Up Don't Shoot", and probably fairies and dragons). Also, Obama gov backing the nationalists is one of the major reasons the whole mess happened in the first place. Now Ukraine is total shit and Russia is heading down in the North Korea direction (except it has 10,000 nukes, not 10). Good job Biden/McCain/US State Dept. They're supporting an illegal band of usurpers, bent on pushing out the rightful landowners and rulers with violence, and looking towards the intention of becoming a subordinate part of Russia? Those "usurpers" are roughly 50% of the population. They VOTED the previous president into office, fair and square. He tries to prevent the economic ruin that would be caused by becoming "Greece without EU membership", in comes the Western MSM and the whole "regime change" circus, with US senators and EU politicians wholeheartedly backing the "Ukraine for Ukrainians" thugs. Basically, the country was always split between Easterners and Westerners, just like US is split between Democrats and Republicans. USA backed an illegal power grab by Westerner extremists, and now pretends the civil war is Russia's fault. If anything, Russian response was half-hearted and very slow - if Eastern republicans got anything similar to the support US gave the nationalists, Ukraine would split down the middle, not further east. |
|
Quoted:
Those "usurpers" are roughly 50% of the population. They VOTED the previous president into office, fair and square. He tries to prevent the economic ruin that would be caused by becoming "Greece without EU membership", in comes the Western MSM and the whole "regime change" circus, with US senators and EU politicians wholeheartedly backing the "Ukraine for Ukrainians" thugs. Basically, the country was always split between Easterners and Westerners, just like US is split between Democrats and Republicans. USA backed an illegal power grab by Westerner extremists, and now pretends the civil war is Russia's fault. If anything, Russian response was half-hearted and very slow - if Eastern republicans got anything similar to the support US gave the nationalists, Ukraine would split down the middle, not further east. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: You Russians can have Syria, hell you can have the ME, I will even root for you. But when you start going into Ukraine, well I hope you catch an RPG up the ass. Without going too deep into the conflict's history, let's just say Russian involvement is similar to US helping Texans in 1830s, except way more justified for a number of reasons (yeah, CNN paints a different picture, but they also believe in "moderate opposition" in Syria, "Hands Up Don't Shoot", and probably fairies and dragons). Also, Obama gov backing the nationalists is one of the major reasons the whole mess happened in the first place. Now Ukraine is total shit and Russia is heading down in the North Korea direction (except it has 10,000 nukes, not 10). Good job Biden/McCain/US State Dept. They're supporting an illegal band of usurpers, bent on pushing out the rightful landowners and rulers with violence, and looking towards the intention of becoming a subordinate part of Russia? Those "usurpers" are roughly 50% of the population. They VOTED the previous president into office, fair and square. He tries to prevent the economic ruin that would be caused by becoming "Greece without EU membership", in comes the Western MSM and the whole "regime change" circus, with US senators and EU politicians wholeheartedly backing the "Ukraine for Ukrainians" thugs. Basically, the country was always split between Easterners and Westerners, just like US is split between Democrats and Republicans. USA backed an illegal power grab by Westerner extremists, and now pretends the civil war is Russia's fault. If anything, Russian response was half-hearted and very slow - if Eastern republicans got anything similar to the support US gave the nationalists, Ukraine would split down the middle, not further east. Ummm yea, no they are not. They only had a majority support in Crimea and a few far eastern Oblasts, and much of that was obtained by force and coercion. Even where most analysts thought they would have more support, given Ukraine's make up, the Russian and Separatist narrative was patently rejected. It is hilarious to see y'all rationalize and defend a gangster like Yanukovych, and of course parrot Russian rube narratives. So what happened to your separatists once they outlived their usefulness? 
|
|
Quoted:
Ummm yea, no they are not. They only had a majority support in Crimea and a few far eastern Oblasts, and much of that was obtained by force and coercion. Even where most analysts thought they would have more support, given Ukraine's make up, the Russian and Separatist narrative was patently rejected. It is hilarious to see y'all rationalize and defend a gangster like Yanukovych, and of course parrot Russian rube narratives. So what happened to your separatists once they outlived their usefulness? Quoted:
Quoted:
Those "usurpers" are roughly 50% of the population. They VOTED the previous president into office, fair and square. He tries to prevent the economic ruin that would be caused by becoming "Greece without EU membership", in comes the Western MSM and the whole "regime change" circus, with US senators and EU politicians wholeheartedly backing the "Ukraine for Ukrainians" thugs. Basically, the country was always split between Easterners and Westerners, just like US is split between Democrats and Republicans. USA backed an illegal power grab by Westerner extremists, and now pretends the civil war is Russia's fault. If anything, Russian response was half-hearted and very slow - if Eastern republicans got anything similar to the support US gave the nationalists, Ukraine would split down the middle, not further east. Ummm yea, no they are not. They only had a majority support in Crimea and a few far eastern Oblasts, and much of that was obtained by force and coercion. Even where most analysts thought they would have more support, given Ukraine's make up, the Russian and Separatist narrative was patently rejected. It is hilarious to see y'all rationalize and defend a gangster like Yanukovych, and of course parrot Russian rube narratives. So what happened to your separatists once they outlived their usefulness? See, that's where it gets complex. Long story short, the pro-democracy protesters in the East lost for a number of reasons: - Yanukovich eliminating all Eastern political movements except his own, so nothing was left when he ran away - Yanukovich eliminating all strong leaders within his party, so most Eastern politicians/elites didn't have the balls to stand up to usurpers - Kremlin not backing Eastern movements with grants/funding, the way US/EU regime change machine did for the nationalists. From US and Soros alone, usurpers got about $10 bn prior to the coup, and more than that after (on Ukraine scale, that's huge - enough to pay the pensions for all retirees for a few years, IIRC). Pro-democracy republicans got a few $mln from Russian philantropes and Kremlin, and it was already after the coup - much too little and too late. US essentially controlled all of Kiev mass media through grants/training programs, too, and State Security was essentially a CIA proxy even before the coup. Kremlin just tried to work with Yanukovich, as opposed to subverting MSM/funding local radicals/giving grants to university professors, etc. That failed, it ain't 1950s anymore. - Kremlin not backing Eastern pro-democracy protests diplomatically, the way US did for the nationalist coup. If Medvedev/Lavrov were showing up in Odessa and Kharkov the way Joe Biden/Nuland were flying to Kiev, that alone would have probably turned the events. - Strong, fast, and violent actions by the usurpers. Yes, if they tried to boil the frog slowly, they may have avoided civil war altogether, but they probably judged that wasn't realistic. So instead they went with rapid action, and in a lot of places, protests were quashed before they could organize or arm themselves. In Kharkov, for example, the locals simply didn't have any weapons - even local Army units were disarmed as "unreliable". Some huge number of people signed up for "people's militia"(tens of thousands, apparently) and beat up the imported nationalist thugs, but they were dispersed by armed SWAT teams before they could mount any sort of real resistance. IIRC there were half a dozen fatalities, one shootout between local police+militia against nazis, but in the end it fizzled in massive arrests and dozens/hundreds of "disappearances". In Odessa, nationalist thugs were bused in from all over the country to quash the locals, ended up with about 50 killed. In Mariupol, National Guard had to use armored vehicles to shoot up a police station when police rebelled against a new chief. Etc. etc. Anyways, the story is long and rife with minor detail. Overall, the semi-defeat of "Russian spring" has more to do with international/elite factors, than lack of support on "ground level". IIRC, during the "hot phase" of civil war, nationalist volunteer units only numbered a few thousand ideologically motivated nazis (the rest had to be forcibly conscripted), whereas republicans fielded 30,000+ all-volunteer militia. So the question of who had more popular support isn't that simple (not to mention Kiev actually created the "Ministry of Truth" and was very intensely brainwashing the populace). If we go by the numbers in the last free&fair elections in 2010-2012, it was roughly 50/50. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A Russian militiaman discusses jihadists: They have motivation; Russia and the West do not (Page 1 of 2)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter