Russian False Flag - Debunk this if you Can

Daryl17, can you explain some more about the meaning of your first post? Did you have the impression that the regulars here state categorically that no "false flags" have ever happened? Do you think this one needs debunking?

I'd appreciate some background.
 
Year Zero said:
Well they belong together. The difference is that Blair and Bush kill more people DIRECTLY, while Putin does so indirectly(for now).
Click to expand...

Kill people directly? When was the last time you saw Blair fixing a bayonet to his SA80?
 
Vincent Vega said:
Depends on your concept of "DIRECTLY". Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

When an American cruise missile explodes in a city block in Iraq and kills people, that is direct killing.

When Putin does nothing about women trafficking, hazing in the army, and other deadly social problems, that is INDIRECT.
 
Vincent Vega said:
Would you agree with "elements of" or "individuals associated with"?
Click to expand...


That depends on the evidence(who specifically). However, if you want to open that door it could be used against any country.

Russia is still very corrupt, but it is legitimizing the corruption under Putin so that it evolves into something like the US or Western European countries. In Russia for example, you still have a lot of bribery going on in political circles. In the US that's called "lobbying".
 
Year Zero said:
When an American cruise missile explodes in a city block in Iraq and kills people, that is direct killing.

When Putin does nothing about women trafficking, hazing in the army, and other deadly social problems, that is INDIRECT.
Click to expand...



I believe "direct" implies a very immediate relationship between killer and and killee.

Given that neither Bush nor Blair have ever personally launched a cruise missile, nor selected the target for a cruise missile, one cannot really claim and deaths as a result of launching of said cruise missile are an example of Bush or Blair killing anyone DIRECTLY.

Also, if you want to get into an anti-Bush or anti-Blair or anti-Putin rant, please take it to the politics forum thanks.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
I believe "direct" implies a very immediate relationship between killer and and killee.

Given that neither Bush nor Blair have ever personally launched a cruise missile, nor selected the target for a cruise missile, one cannot really claim and deaths as a result of launching of said cruise missile are an example of Bush or Blair killing anyone DIRECTLY.

Also, if you want to get into an anti-Bush or anti-Blair or anti-Putin rant, please take it to the politics forum thanks.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Oh ok it's lawyer-ball time.
 
gumboot said:
Can you translate that into English for me?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Nobody here believes that Bush or Blair have ever launched a cruise missile. That does not exempt them from the havoc they have wreaked. I don't know about British law but the President is the Commander in Chief of the military and he is very much responsible for what has become a very bloody war.

Would you say that Hitler never killed anyone? It's not like he dumped the pellets into the krema, or took part in a firing squad duty.

I'm not the one trying to bring politics into this- I just commented on how there really is little significant difference between Putin, Bush, and Blair.
 
Huh.

Year Zero said:
Nobody here believes that Bush or Blair have ever launched a cruise missile. That does not exempt them from the havoc they have wreaked. I don't know about British law but the President is the Commander in Chief of the military and he is very much responsible for what has become a very bloody war.

Would you say that Hitler never killed anyone? It's not like he dumped the pellets into the krema, or took part in a firing squad duty.

I'm not the one trying to bring politics into this- I just commented on how there really is little significant difference between Putin, Bush, and Blair.
Click to expand...


No one has been "DIRECTLY" killed in Chechnya since Putin has been in Power?
 
Year Zero said:
Still haven't seen proof that this guy was poisoned by the Russian government.
Click to expand...

I never said I had proof he was killed by the Russian government. No one does (obviously). I do have my suspicions though, which are based on the following.

For one thing, Litvinenko himself says the government killed him:
http://www.online-translator.com/ur....ru/Article/2006/11/28/20061128185243507.html
You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.
Click to expand...

His book, which mentioned the Russian government plotting the bombings mentioned at the start of this thread was targeted in 2003 by Russian authorities who managed to destroy 4000 copies of the book.

He was poisoned with polonium-210, which isn't exactly available in supermarkets.

Just read the Wikipedia page on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko

Also read about:
Anna Politkovskaya
Artyom Borovik

It's no secret that Putin and the Russian government have been suppressing dissent.

Again though, I am perfectly happy being proven wrong as I am the first to admit that I haven't spent much time looking into this. Things certainly seem off though.
 
Vincent Vega said:
No one has been "DIRECTLY" killed in Chechnya since Putin has been in Power?
Click to expand...

Count the deaths in Chechnya since Putin's rise and compare to those in Iraq, plus the further implications of all this. Of course at least both Bush and Blair's soldiers are treated FAR better. The situation in Chechnya has calmed down a lot in the last few years, but for Russians the BARRACKS can be just as dangerous.
 
Some estimates as high as 200,000 since 1994

Year Zero said:
Count the deaths in Chechnya since Putin's rise and compare to those in Iraq, plus the further implications of all this. Of course at least both Bush and Blair's soldiers are treated FAR better. The situation in Chechnya has calmed down a lot in the last few years, but for Russians the BARRACKS can be just as dangerous.
Click to expand...

You did qualify the difference as "more", I will give you that. But I think in regards to international conflict you can include most national leaders through history as have killed "DIRECTLY". In fact Bush and Blair are relative lightweights. So as a statement, your qualification of Putin is lost on me.
 
Vincent Vega said:
You did qualify the difference as "more", I will give you that. But I think in regards to international conflict you can include most national leaders through history as have killed "DIRECTLY". In fact Bush and Blair are relative lightweights. So as a statement, your qualification of Putin is lost on me.
Click to expand...

Well since I have no intention of defending Putin I'll drop it. I have enough trouble convincing "patriots" here(in Russia) that Putin is no better than Bush.
 
Russia is not a real democracy. They dont have freedom and democracy drilled into their heads like we do here in the USA. It is very plausable that these apartment attacks were indeed carried out by the FSB. And there is hard evidence to suggest it. Unlike 9-11, where there is no hard evidence of an inside job.
 
parky76 said:
Russia is not a real democracy. They dont have freedom and democracy drilled into their heads like we do here in the USA. It is very plausable that these apartment attacks were indeed carried out by the FSB. And there is hard evidence to suggest it. Unlike 9-11, where there is no hard evidence of an inside job.
Click to expand...

Well when someone says "democracy", I ask, "for whom?"

Whether a government will resort to tactics like this has little to do with how "democratic" it is if we are going by commonly accepted definitions today. Of course with 9-11 the idea that any government would organize something like that is simply ludicrous beyond belief. A lot of the idiots like to compare it to the Reichstag fire. Of course the Nazis weren't stupid enough to kill 3,000 of their own people at a time when they were still trying to consolidate power.

The 9-11 conspiracy ought to take the cake for being backed up by the largest amount of bad analogies, such as Pearl Harbor and the Tonkin Gulf incident.
 
Year Zero said:
Nobody here believes that Bush or Blair have ever launched a cruise missile. That does not exempt them from the havoc they have wreaked. I don't know about British law but the President is the Commander in Chief of the military and he is very much responsible for what has become a very bloody war.
Click to expand...


The British Armed Forces serve the Queen, not the Prime Minister.

The Iraq War involving the US military is one of the least bloody wars in human history. The concurrent Iraq CIVIL War is also exceedingly unbloody, by civil war standards (even by generic war standards it ranks well down the list).

You didn't say they were not exempt "from the havoc they have wreaked". You said they had killed people directly. This is a lie.




Year Zero said:
Would you say that Hitler never killed anyone? It's not like he dumped the pellets into the krema, or took part in a firing squad duty.
Click to expand...


Hitler was an artillery officer in World War One so I imagine he probably has killed people directly, not to mention the other violence he was involved in during the early days of the Weimar Republic.

However it's probably quite likely he never killed anyone directly during his tenure as humanity's number one psychopathic dictator of absolute evil.




Year Zero said:
I'm not the one trying to bring politics into this- I just commented on how there really is little significant difference between Putin, Bush, and Blair.
Click to expand...

That's politics. Not. This. Sub. Forum.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
The British Armed Forces serve the Queen, not the Prime Minister.

The Iraq War involving the US military is one of the least bloody wars in human history. The concurrent Iraq CIVIL War is also exceedingly unbloody, by civil war standards (even by generic war standards it ranks well down the list).

You didn't say they were not exempt "from the havoc they have wreaked". You said they had killed people directly. This is a lie.
Click to expand...

Remember that "lawyer ball" term you didn't understand? You just defined it.

I'm sure the Iraqi people will be happy to hear that their war(which is still ongoing by the way), is relatively "unbloody".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom