Worldenterer1 wrote:Summerlander wrote:Vladimir Putin is certainly a war criminal using KGB tactics to expand his empire. Russians have regressed to something like the Czarist regime.
Hey Summerlander, could you explain what makes you think this? Just curious, because I've heard a lot of people say that Putin is one of the last people trying to prevent the US and EU from having a complete monopoly over certain resources like oil or the petrodollar for example. Of course, the media lies, and everyone has their own opinion, so it's tricky to know if what I've heard is reliable or not. But I just try to gather as much info on a topic as I possibly can by asking as many people as I can.
Hi and welcome to the debate, Worldenterer1!
Yes, the media can lie (which is why it is good to heed independent accounts or even essays written by journalists who have nothing to gain and can jeopardise their positions). But so can politicians - and more often! This is a new cold war and the Russian president is trying to destroy American hegemony via the world's banks. Surely he dreams about the economical fall of the United states of America and nostalgically craves for the old theocratic Russian empire where the head is a demigod. He is the new Tsar in the making. (Goes to church frequently.) He is the new Stalin, too. (He is portrayed as a spy superhero in games and cartoons.) He is not doing this for the good of the world. He is creating an Orwellian dystopia for his own glorification in history and be the world's greatest muscle. And Obama's mistakes abroad have only helped him.
President Vladimir Putin is an imperialist psychopath and cannot be trusted. I'm not kidding! I mean psychopath quite literally. Putin loves power, attention, suffering, intimidation, and has a complete disregard for human life. He has already been found to be responsible for thousands of deaths in his homeland, Ukraine and Georgia. Speaking of the latter, let's recall the South Ossetia war of the 90s, which brings the Georgian-Ossetian conflict to the forefront! It served only as part of a ploy for Russia to demonstrate how much these independent states are apparently incompetent and in need of mother Russia. That was very similar to what is happening in Ukraine today, where peace efforts and ceasefires are in vain and Russian control, internationally unrecognised, insidiously settles in.
Putin is an expert in espionage, false propaganda, intimidation, assassination and other forms of corruption. If I was to do a psychological assessment on first impressions, I'd say he resents the way he was brought up, in poverty among rats. As a teenager, his psychopathy already showed as he sought trouble at every opportunity in the streets of Leningrad. The KGB merely did a good job in turning a ruffian into a sophisticated, cold, and calculating psychopath. In his thirties, when he joined the Saint Petersburg Administration in heading the committee for external relations, he was investigated for corruption and the City Council recommended that he be fired. This didn't happened as the mayor was his former college professor and his right hand man. Before you know it, this monster is invited to the Kremlin to work for Boris Yeltsin, giving him the opportunity to influence government VIPs and climb the ladder of power.
Once Putin became Prime Minister, a series of shady explosions took place in Russia and many civilians were wounded or killed. Subsequently, Putin blamed terrorists from Chechnya, the land of minerals predominantly populated by Sunni Muslims. (Two birds with one stone if you see where this is going: an imperialist and economical move plus ensuring the preservation, strength, and gradual revival of Russian theocracy.) After this propaganda, Putin vowed to bring the chechnyans to justice, but here is the clincher: to this day no evidence has been produced to show that they were guilty of the atrocities. (Unlike 9/11!)
But the Kremlin looks suspiciously guilty...
Vladimir Putin has been accused of systematically stifling and manipulating the media, not to mention rigging elections. He even banned certain documentaries regarding what took place in Riazan. After receiving a report of suspicious activity in the area, the police managed to foil the planned detonation of a bomb. Experts even confirmed the existence of explosives. The FSB then subsequently claimed the incident was only a civilian defence exercise and that sugar had been used. Cover-up much? Thank god we have investigative journalists like Pavel Voloshin of the Novaya Gazetta, who interviewed the specialist who confirmed the existence of Hexagen:
deschainXIX wrote:Wow, that was a truly expansive piece. You know a lot about political history! I totally agree with your conclusion, as well, by the way. I also agree about the criticisms of Ghandi--I think I read about them in "The End of Faith." Harris briefly highlighted them, to refute people who pointed to MLK and Ghandi as examples of religion having a glorious, progressive hand behind history as well as an ugly, regressive one.
Hillary Clinton has ran for presidency before. No one stopped her from running. She had no setbacks that the other candidates didn’t have. Of course, there were those fundy Christians who probably abhorred the idea of a woman leading the country--but that’s what I’ve been saying. Most of the gender inequality still around is practiced and purported by religious freaks.
Thanks, deschainXIX. I guess I really wanted to understand those times and why people around me at the time were saying what they were saying. And good point about Hillary Clinton. She would probably do a better job than Obama regarding ISIS but she is still not perfect.
I think it is terrible that guys can only respect females who are slim, which is why so many females die from anorexia. Personally I don't see the point about guys with big muscles, they don't seem any different from any of the others. Recall that I am aromantic, so I don't notice or feel anything for anyone, although I try to behave civilized in public. While I do try to behave civilized with the opposite gender, there are some of them that will behave like idiots in front of me, and that irritates the heck out of me. I also harshly reject date requests.
Double standards. What do you think about 20-year-old Maddy Coz tweeting the following about David Beckham's 10-year-old son: "Romeo Beckham, you're like ten and so hot!" and then people slating paedophile-hunter Stinson Hunter for suggesting that she was inapproprite?
Hunter's argument urged people to imagine that a man was saying that to a 10-year-old girl. He merely reversed the roles and asked if people would be as justificative of the hypothetical male poster. I think Coz could have said something like, "Romeo, you're a handsome boy, you must take after your father and will be a ladies' man when you're older." This would be appropriate. But people seem to think that only male paedophiles exist. Imagine the uproar or the suspicion that would arise if a heterosexual man merely tweeted the following about a prepubescent girl: "You are so pretty, you'll definately be a fox when you're older..."