The West plans to fight against Russian propaganda

Is Putin's agitprop dangerous for the West?

  • It's extremely dangerous

    Votes: 19 44.2%
  • It's a problem but not so big

    Votes: 9 20.9%
  • It's nasty but not a problem at all

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • Putin's agitprop is primitive and inefficient

    Votes: 4 9.3%
  • There is no any Russian propaganda - it's just a freedom of information

    Votes: 5 11.6%
  • Don't know/don't care

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • Total voters
    43

Slime

LE
How many words do you have to post to get your turnip ration?

Replies or quotes are the important thing.

Posting utter nonsense or whataboutery garners more replies than posting factual or correct info.

A cynic might wonder why the KGB avatar posted over 35 different scenarios in the Skripal thread :)
 
'Cellar with rats' was no more than ironical hyperbolization.

You did not recognise the comment. This is strange because you were dissected ad nauseam for it in the Novichok thread. Your previous comments are written in a style that intimates you have just come across me. We have been corresponding for years now. Or rather, I have been corresponding with the KGB Avatar for many years.

Let's recall also torture in Abu Graib prison in Iraq. I mean that Guantanamo is not an exception but something that one could expect from Washington. The Nazis decided that certain people are outside the Law. That the Law is not applicable for them and as result Treblinka appeared. In the same way Washington decided that certain people are outside the law and now we see Guantanamo and Abu Graib but are you sure that new American Treblinka is absolutely impossible (maybe on much lower scale)?

Nothing is impossible. Again, you use moral relativism to present spurious arguments. I do not defend American excess. However, I also recognise that slack discipline both at the organisational and personal level results in abuse. Coupled with command decisions to get results. Hence Abu Graib. Does such not happen in Russia? Are all your military/civil prison guards fine and upstanding men or does an occasional Ms. England pop up? Do you really believe that this is the norm for the USA. If so, why?

It's simple. States compete with each other, sometimes 'kill' and 'eat' each other, unite into packs with pack leader. In other words - international politics is alike political jungles where laws of jungles are in force, including 'might is right'.

Except the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest has precious little to do with this argument and is used by conquerors to justify their actions.

Before might is right, there should be discourse, compromise and friendship.

Specifically, how has the West acted in this manner towards Russia?
Do the Russian people want war?
Why does it matter to Russia how the West fights Russian propaganda.?

We have a bucket load of trolls here. The combined effect is zero. Presumably our efforts against Russia will have the same null effect or do the Russian people believe everything they are told?
 
You did not recognise the comment. This is strange because you were dissected ad nauseam for it in the Novichok thread. Your previous comments are written in a style that intimates you have just come across me. We have been corresponding for years now. Or rather, I have been corresponding with the KGB Avatar for many years.
So what do you propose to your obedient servant? Don't use irony, jokes and always express thoughts in dry formal manner, to answer your questions as if I'm questioned by policeman? OK, from this point and only with you personally my posts will be voided any humorous or/and ironical elements. Though it is not extended for our friends (especially for those who appreciate irony, understand it).
On a serious note, British authorities have no reason to keep the Skipals in a cellar, moreover with rats but from my point of view there exists a serious cause to keep them isolated from external world. Only naive people could accept implausible explanation that the Skripals 'themselves wish to be isolated'. I suppose that the Skripals didn't return home and it creates an alibi for the 'tourists' that ruins carefully constructed official version.

Nothing is impossible. Again, you use moral relativism to present spurious arguments. I do not defend American excess. However, I also recognise that slack discipline both at the organisational and personal level results in abuse. Coupled with command decisions to get results. Hence Abu Graib. Does such not happen in Russia? Are all your military/civil prison guards fine and upstanding men or does an occasional Ms. England pop up? Do you really believe that this is the norm for the USA. If so, why?
Our friends (sometimes voided real counterarguments) accuse me in 'whataboutism' while for me comparison of different countries is a useful, productive method. There were reports that detention centers in Chechnya are not softly speaking 5 star resorts. I strongly suspect that beatings, torture - moral and physical there alas use to happen (at least used to happen). So Moscow hasn't moral ground to point finger toward Washington in this respect and at the same time Washington with its net of secret CIA prisons in Europe and around the World also hasn't right to be a moralist.
The government is under mounting pressure to "come clean" about the role of an overseas UK territory leased to the US and allegedly used as a secret "black site" detention centre.
An opponent of Colonel Gaddafi who was rendered in a joint MI6-CIA operation, and a leading human rights group representing him, have demanded that the foreign secretary, William Hague, clarify the UK's position on Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean leased to the US until 2016. The Senate's intelligence security committee is preparing to declassify a file that reportedly confirms that the CIA detained "high-value suspects on Diego Garcia" and that "the black site arrangement on the atoll was made with the 'full cooperation' of the British government".
From formal point of view anybody in the UK or British controlled territories has not to be detained arbitrary, has right for fair trial. But we see an exception from this rule. "Black sites" for arbitrary detentions on territories under British control appeared and could appear in the future. So arbitrary detention (isolation) of the Skripals can not be excluded.

Except the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest has precious little to do with this argument and is used by conquerors to justify their actions.

Before might is right, there should be discourse, compromise and friendship.
In theory - yes but in real life I see only one possibility - the stronger side should strictly follow high moral principles.
1. Specifically, how has the West acted in this manner towards Russia?
2. Do the Russian people want war?
3. Why does it matter to Russia how the West fights Russian propaganda.?

4. We have a bucket load of trolls here. The combined effect is zero. Presumably our efforts against Russia will have the same null effect or do the Russian people believe everything they are told?
4. No of course. The Russians don't believe the government and its propagandists. Recently the speaker of the States Duma visited his native city of Saratov (it's a big city). On the street mr.Volodin was stopped by 90yo woman who told him during 15 minutes about corruption, widespread theft, injustice and so on. TV as instrument to create 'zombies' now is less and less effective.
3. For Russian people it is irrelevant. For Putin's regime it is not a problem because so called 'fight' is ineffective.
2. No of course. Nobody wants war.
1. It is a big separate theme. I would like to mention only main issues. They are permanent extension of NATO towards Russia, bombings of Belgrade and violation by the West of UNSCR 1244, Iraqi war, bombings of Libya, proxy war in Georgia in 2008, billions spent to create anti-Russian political forces in Ukraine, sanctions toward Russia that still in force.
 
Yes, mr.Assange had consensual sex with 2 Swedish ladies. Allegedly sometimes the sex was unprotected for reasons still not established. So the allegations remained just allegations.

A couple of points:

If the latter part (the sex was unprotected) is true then the first part (sex was consensual) is false, that is the claim. So you could say that it is just alleged he had consensual sex.

Secondly, as Assange ran away and hid in an embassy and refused to face his accusers, of course they are just allegations. That is the way that a functioning legal system works. We don't decide people are guilty in advance and then hold a sham trial in the West.
 
So what do you propose to your obedient servant? Don't use irony, jokes and always express thoughts in dry formal manner, to answer your questions as if I'm questioned by policeman? OK, from this point and only with you personally my posts will be voided any humorous or/and ironical elements. Though it is not extended for our friends (especially for those who appreciate irony, understand it).

You still didn't recognise the comment.
How strange that you should think I am questioning you like a policeman would. Wonder why I would do that?
I think your Avatar has previously had me on ignore, so I am winning at the moment.

At the moment, I will leave the Skripals alone unless you decide to start posting again in the Novichok thread. There are two reasons for this:

1] I am not privy to either court or police information.
2] There are people on this site who are far more able to converse with you on that matter at the moment.

In theory - yes but in real life I see only one possibility - the stronger side should strictly follow high moral principles.

No.

The Darwinian concept implies differential success at reproduction due to phenotypic expression of advantageous characteristics within a species.

The doctrine of might is right implies a narrow definition of success , usually dependent on how many war toys one has. There is no comparison and the definition of strength is usually geared to how many tanks one has at the current moment.

4] Good.
3] Ok.
2] Good.
1] I accept a few of those. Could you now please outline how Russia has acted against the West since 2010.
 
The Darwinian concept implies differential success at reproduction due to phenotypic expression of advantageous characteristics within a species.

The doctrine of might is right implies a narrow definition of success , usually dependent on how many war toys one has. There is no comparison and the definition of strength is usually geared to how many tanks one has at the current moment.
The Darwinian concept is too well known to discuss it. As for international politics then alas the Darwinian concept gives better explanation of current events than alternative theories. As for might is right principle then it is still in force. I mean really acts on the world stage.
4] Good.
3] Ok.
2] Good.
1] I accept a few of those. Could you now please outline how Russia has acted against the West since 2010.
It would be logical to ask you - what Russia has done against the West? From my point of view the main problem for the USA is the very existence of Russia - a big country that doesn't follow orders from Washington. It is the Moscow's the main sin.
 
It would be logical to ask you - what Russia has done against the West? From my point of view the main problem for the USA is the very existence of Russia - a big country that doesn't follow orders from Washington. It is the Moscow's the main sin.
Ignoring general espionage and influence on other countries which everyone does, of the top of my head:

Throw a Scotsman out of the window onto railings, leave a trail of radioactive material across London, stab people with poisoned umbrellas, leave a trail of nerve agent contamination in London and Salisbury, murder an innocent civilian .....
 

Slime

LE
This thread has made me laugh out loud today :)

If we consider how much time the KGB avatar is spending trying to deal with his single rats in a cellar comment, just think how many years it would take to go through all his lies in the Novichock, Closed Novichock thread, MH17 and Syria threads :)
 
Last edited:
It would be logical to ask you - what Russia has done against the West? From my point of view the main problem for the USA is the very existence of Russia - a big country that doesn't follow orders from Washington. It is the Moscow's the main sin.

I will ask again. What has Russia done against the West. You know, I just want you to tell me or is that not allowed?
 
If we consider how much time the KGB avatar is spending trying to deal with his single rats in a cellar comment, just think how many years it would take to go through all his lies in the Novichock, Closed Novichock, MH17 and Syria threads :)


It is frankly comical.

@KGB_resident

I must admit, the rats in cellar comment was outstanding. Surprised you didn't remember it.
 
It is frankly comical.

@KGB_resident

I must admit, the rats in cellar comment was outstanding. Surprised you didn't remember it.
Why do you mention constantly 'the rats in cellar' comments as I indeed made it?
You are serious man and I (being not sure that I made such a comment) believed you, believed your (apparently much better) memory.
I decided to investigate the question.
Our friend @Slime wrote 12 October 2018
Let's look at the latest KGB poster.
...
Isn't it funny how he has also opined expertise in:
...
Where the Skripals were during their medical care.
That they were hostages.
That they were dead.
That they were in a cellar with rats in.
So the comment about 'rats in the cellar' (attributed to me) was invented by our friend @Slime due to his rich fantasy.
 
You said it. He reported it. I laughed.
In fact I didn't said it. Our friend @Slime invented my unexisting comment. It is a form of trolling to repeat "you yourself said it"
Now about that question:

What has Russia done against the West. You must remember something surely?
Well, from my point of view nothing special (from geopolitical point of view). You may disagree.
 
In fact I didn't said it. Our friend @Slime invented my unexisting comment. It is a form of trolling to repeat "you yourself said it"

I remember reading it and no I am not going to trawl through a thread looking for it.

Well, from my point of view nothing special (from geopolitical point of view). You may disagree.

So, you reckon no actions at the geopolitical level. Er...OK. What you mean is that you are not allowed to say .

Do any other actions come to mind which harm the West and Western citizens?
 
I remember reading it and no I am not going to trawl through a thread looking for it.



So, you reckon no actions at the geopolitical level. Er...OK. What you mean is that you are not allowed to say .

Do any other actions come to mind which harm the West and Western citizens?
I'm ready to discuss anything.
- Poisoning of mr.Litvinenko. He was a former FSB lt.colonel. He could or could not be poisoned using Polonium 210. Personally I strongly doubt that Po-210 was used. No one independent laboratory confirmed it.
- Skripals poisoning. Initially I regarded it as a provocation. But after poisoning of mr.Navalny I regard it as a plausible version. Though still the investigation is not completed. So we should wait.
- Explosion in Qatar where Chechen separatist leader Yandarbiyev was killed. The explosion was staged by Russian agents. But hardly this act of state terrorism was directed against the West and Wester citizens.
- Western gay activists were attacked in Moscow during an attempt to stage a march (not allowed by Moscow authorities). Attackers were not punished.
- Gazprom stopped gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine in 2009 because the contract for transit and gas was not signed and Ukraine didn't pay. Soon the new agreement was signed,
- There are allegations about explosion in Czech republic but still they are only allegations.
Maybe you would be so kind to add other points?
 
Last edited:
Don't know if it's already been posted on here, but I'm sure I read today that three of the Russian Dr's who treated Navalny after he was poisoned have died?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top