Russian bogeyman continues to be a useful tool

[mr friendly guy]

Here I thought Trump's characterisation of China raping the US was bad. But nope, Russia's just been accused of worse. Because you see, Russia doesn't just metaphorically "rape", no you see, they "may" be organising actual rapes. To help win elections of course. Just like how they hacked the DNC to help Trump.

linky

Russia may organise migrant sex attacks in Europe to make Angela Merkel lose German elections, EU experts claim


THE secret services in Russia and Syria may encourage refugees to carry out orchestrated sex attacks on German women in a sick bid to oust Angela Merkel from office, it’s been claimed.
According to The Sun, the startling claim was made by an expert from the European Council on Foreign Relations, who said the foreign powers could work together in a bid to destabilise Germany in the run up to next year’s election.
The accusation against Russia comes after the CIA alleged Russian hackers had intervened in the 2016 US election to help Donald Trump get into the White House.
German tabloid Bild has now warned Mr Putin could also interfere in the upcoming general elections in Germany next year by turning the electorate against the Chancellor.

Gustav Gressel, an expert at the think-tank, said small numbers of refugees with links to the
Kremlin and Syrian security services could be called into action to sway public opinion against the Chancellor.
Referring to a series of sex assaults in the city of Cologne during New Year’s Eve celebrations at the start of 2016 he said: “What would happen, for example, if a similar event were repeated at a summer festival before the election as in the Silvesternacht in Cologne?
“How would Merkel stand then? What would be the consequence for the Bundestag election? Of course, this is an extreme example, but it is within the range of possibility.”
The well-publicised attacks provoked a huge anti-migrant backlash in Germany, and Gressel said similar attacks could provoke Germans to turn on Merkel at next September’s election.

Merkel is considered anti-Russian by Putin and just this week she recommended extending EU sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict.
Last month the Chancellor warned that Russia is already interfering with the German election adding: “We are already, even now, having to deal with information out of Russia or with internet attacks that are of Russian origin or with news which sows false information.”
She said dealing with this is already a ‘daily task’, and added: ‘So it may be that this could also play a role during the election campaign.’
But Hans-Georg Massen, who heads Germany’s domestic intelligence service, said a Russian disinformation campaign was likely.
Last month he told Reuters: “This could happen again next year and we are alarmed.
“We have the impression that this is part of a hybrid threat that seeks to influence public opinion and decision-making processes.”

[Grumman]

How convenient - the same thing that's already happened once on their watch might happen again, but this time, it's Snowball's fault.

On the plus side, the rapists are now terrorists, committing acts of (sexual) violence to terrorise the populace for political ends. So the next time some sick bastard rapes a child because he's got blue balls and no morals, they may actually hold him properly accountable for his actions.

[Grumman]

Or not: the appellate court just found that no, the "sexual emergency" rapist really is a rapist, and actually handed down a more severe penalty than the one he started with. So good on them.

[Col. Crackpot]

To be fair, the Russians are pretty effectively raping Aleppo as we speak.

[K. A. Pital]

To be fair, the Russians are pretty effectively raping Aleppo as we speak.

Russians are raping Aleppo? Did you just mistake a devastating total-war air bombardment as advocated by the great American Air Force generals for rape?

[Col. Crackpot]

To be fair, the Russians are pretty effectively raping Aleppo as we speak.

Russians are raping Aleppo? Did you just mistake a devastating total-war air bombardment as advocated by the great American Air Force generals for rape?

Pull your fucking head out of your ass you Chekist fucktard.
Russia and her regime lackeys are raping Syria. Killing it's children. Destroying it's culture so they can have a fancy navy base in Tartus and their buddy in charge.

[Tribble]

To be fair, the Russians are pretty effectively raping Aleppo as we speak.

Russians are raping Aleppo? Did you just mistake a devastating total-war air bombardment as advocated by the great American Air Force generals for rape?

Pull your fucking head out of your ass you Chekist fucktard.
Russia and her regime lackeys are raping Syria. Killing it's children. Destroying it's culture so they can have a fancy navy base in Tartus and their buddy in charge.

What killed far more people was America deliberately handing out weapons to rebel groups while having no plan to deal with the power vacuum should those rebels succeed. To be clear, Russia is killing people. Assad is killing people. Both are dictatorships, no question about it. Compared to groups like ISIS though they are bloody saints and Russia was absolutely right in its assertion that toppling Assad and creating a power vacuum would be even more disastrous than leaving him in power. The American government had learned nothing from Iraq (either that or they simply don't give a damn, take your pick).

[Flagg]

To be fair, the Russians are pretty effectively raping Aleppo as we speak.

Russians are raping Aleppo? Did you just mistake a devastating total-war air bombardment as advocated by the great American Air Force generals for rape?

Pull your fucking head out of your ass you Chekist fucktard.
Russia and her regime lackeys are raping Syria. Killing it's children. Destroying it's culture so they can have a fancy navy base in Tartus and their buddy in charge.

Can we not trivialize rape? Or use ableist language?

[K. A. Pital]

Pull your fucking head out of your ass you Chekist fucktard.
Russia and her regime lackeys are raping Syria. Killing it's children. Destroying it's culture so they can have a fancy navy base in Tartus and their buddy in charge.

Pull your fucking head out of your ass you Islamist fucktard.
Saudi islamists and their Western buddies are raping the entire Middle East, Syria included. Killing its children. Destroying its culture so that they can remove Baathists from power in Syria, Libya and elsewhere for Saudite glory. Enabling and welcoming the rise of ISIS, as declassified documents show.


But sure, you can rail at me all you like.

Fuckers like you enabled the rise of Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Army of Conquest, Islamict Front, Erdo-fucking-gun and other reprehensible Islamist scum that in my eyes have to be killed on spot because their views on everything, starting from science and history, and ending with the role of women.

The West once again plays the "good Islamist rebels vs. bad secular dictatorship" card that's been already played in Afghanistan. But you refuse to learn your fucking lesson and sponsor another set of scumbags with your Qatari and Saudi pals.

In the end, only ruins will remain everywhere.

[The Romulan Republic]

K.A. Pital, if your only defence is "WAHHHHHH, the West is worse!"... that's not a defence.

Apologists for the actions of non-western dictators always seem to think that if they can point to comparable or greater atrocities by "the West" (which is not nearly as homogenous an entity as those people like to think- see the many western countries which absolutely refused to join the war in Iraq), that that some how makes the other side the good guys, or at least constitutes some kind of defence. It doesn't. The United States and its allies could be the fucking fourth Reich (and may yet become so thanks to Herr Trump, with the aid of his Russian backers), but it wouldn't give Russia or Assad or anyone else a blank check to commit atrocities.

"Someone else is doing something bad too" is not a defence, any more than "Hey, at least I'm not a serial killer" is a defence for murder.

Also, nice to see that you're using the "Anyone who doesn't support Assad/Russia's actions is an Islamist" line by calling you opponent an Islamist. But then, that's the other default tactic so beloved by those who wish to make excuses for dictators who gas their own people, and the mass hospital bombers who support them.

[The Romulan Republic]

And while we're on the subject, you provided no link for your source. For all I know its something you got off a conspiracy theorist site like Infowars or Breitbart.

[Flagg]

Russia's actions may be inexcusable, but it's undeniable that the current situation in the ME is a direct result of the US invasion of Iraq and supporting Syrian rebels. So the US whining is just ludicrous.

[aerius]

Russia is fixing the West's fuckups in the Middle East, deal with it.

[Col. Crackpot]

Russians are raping Aleppo? Did you just mistake a devastating total-war air bombardment as advocated by the great American Air Force generals for rape?

Pull your fucking head out of your ass you Chekist fucktard.
Russia and her regime lackeys are raping Syria. Killing it's children. Destroying it's culture so they can have a fancy navy base in Tartus and their buddy in charge.

Can we not trivialize rape? Or use ableist language?

In no way does that trivialize rape. It is an apt description for the utter fucking horror of death and violence that is taking place in Aleppo right now.

[The Romulan Republic]

Russia is fixing the West's fuckups in the Middle East, deal with it.

What a thoughtful and nuanced rebuttal! You really put me in my place!

And again, the sole defence you slimy little apologists can muster is "the West is worse". That isn't a defence of Russia's actions.

Oh, do tell me why a campaign of frequent hospital bombings is necessary to "fix" the Middle East. And also explain why Assad is the man we can trust to defend the Middle East from Islamism, when he's the incompetent, brutal fuck who lost control of Syria in the first place, and is likely only still alive and (nominally) in power because he has Russia backing him up? You can't even use "evil but capable" as a defence for him. He's a useless walking cluster fuck.

Syria is not a simple "us vs. them, good vs. evil" situation. Their are many sides, with many goals, and most (not all, perhaps, but most) of them are varying shades of evil. You want to frame this debate as "the West vs. Russia, West bad, therefore Russia good".

That. Is. A. Lie.

[Flagg]

Pull your fucking head out of your ass you Chekist fucktard.
Russia and her regime lackeys are raping Syria. Killing it's children. Destroying it's culture so they can have a fancy navy base in Tartus and their buddy in charge.

Can we not trivialize rape? Or use ableist language?

In no way does that trivialize rape. It is an apt description for the utter fucking horror of death and violence that is taking place in Aleppo right now.

Right. Tell that to someone who was raped. Oh wait, you just did.

[K. A. Pital]

K.A. Pital, if your only defence is "WAHHHHHH, the West is worse!"... that's not a defence.

That is not a defence and I'm not defending shit. You guys let a fucking theocratic slaver rape cult take over half of Syria and Iraq. I'm positively sure that of course nobody among the architects of "Saudi Arabia first" and other smart ass policies will want to take the blame now, but that's what they are, "intelligence agencies" - spineless cowards who never take blame when the whole blows up in their face.

I am not expecting you to understand that it was simply a retort in kind. If we are going around throwing accusations and using rape-speak to describe war, why not pay in kind?

Also, nice to see that you're using the "Anyone who doesn't support Assad/Russia's actions is an Islamist" line by calling you opponent an Islamist. But then, that's the other default tactic so beloved by those who wish to make excuses for dictators who gas their own people, and the mass hospital bombers who support them.

No, idiot, that was a retort for name-calling. If I'm a Chekist then he's an Islamist. Has about as much truth to it.

Finally, if it were really the Fourth Reich, then yes, it cannot be allowed to win no matter what. And also, islamists are capital-B bad. Not just "strongmen" or "dictators". They carry a reprehensible and extremely dangerous Dark Age worldview, and it is much worse than mere warlordism or dictatorship.

[Flagg]

Russia is fixing the West's fuckups in the Middle East, deal with it.

What a thoughtful and nuanced rebuttal! You really put me in my place!

And again, the sole defence you slimy little apologists can muster is "the West is worse". That isn't a defence of Russia's actions.

Oh, do tell me why a campaign of frequent hospital bombings is necessary to "fix" the Middle East. And also explain why Assad is the man we can trust to defend the Middle East from Islamism, when he's the incompetent, brutal fuck who lost control of Syria in the first place, and is likely only still alive and (nominally) in power because he has Russia backing him up? You can't even use "evil but capable" as a defence for him. He's a useless walking cluster fuck.

Syria is not a simple "us vs. them, good vs. evil" situation. Their are many sides, with many goals, and most (not all, perhaps, but most) of them are varying shades of evil. You want to frame this debate as "the West vs. Russia, West bad, therefore Russia good".

That. Is. A. Lie.

Did you just call me a Russian apologist?

Are you denying that the US started this shit? Are you denying that the US has bombed hospitals and schools? Do you think ISIS would be better for the Syrian people (the ones they don't crucify)?

[K. A. Pital]

The problem there's no such thing as "Syrian people". The country was a tribal mish-mash split along ethnic and sectarian lines.

A bit of money into the flame, and it burned. There's no Syria. There's an Alawite state which used to be Syria, there's the Sunni theocracy (whether under Army of Conquest or under ISIS, both are very similar in policy) and there are Kurds.

Syria is gone. People who cry over it now... are a bit late to the party.

And I wonder just where exactly these people were when Sunni extremists were exterminating villages in Iraq, eastern Syria and slaughtering the Kurds in the north of Syria?..

And while we're on the subject, you provided no link for your source. For all I know its something you got off a conspiracy theorist site like Infowars or Breitbart.

Didn't notice that snippet on the first go. You dumbass, it was reported in the god damn Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... syria-iraq

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

[Flagg]

The problem there's no such thing as "Syrian people". The country was a tribal mish-mash split along ethnic and sectarian lines.

A bit of money into the flame, and it burned. There's no Syria. There's an Alawite state which used to be Syria, there's the Sunni theocracy (whether under Army of Conquest or under ISIS, both are very similar in policy) and there are Kurds.

Syria is gone. People who cry over it now... are a bit late to the party.

And I wonder just where exactly these people were when Sunni extremists were exterminating villages in Iraq, eastern Syria and slaughtering the Kurds in the north of Syria?..

I'm well aware of the post WWI British Empire just drawing borders with no care as to tribal, ethnic, or religious populations. I used the term "Syrian people" because it was easier to type.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm well aware of the post WWI British Empire just drawing borders with no care as to tribal, ethnic, or religious populations. I used the term "Syrian people" because it was easier to type.

Yeah, and you were right to use it, but in that context... some part of "Syrian people" will inevitably suffer regardless of who wins. Sunni Arabs will not have a good life under a Shia-supported regime, and the opposite (ISIS or Islamic Front or the like) is probably even worse, as practice of Salafist control has shown...

[aerius]

Russia is fixing the West's fuckups in the Middle East, deal with it.

What a thoughtful and nuanced rebuttal! You really put me in my place!

And again, the sole defence you slimy little apologists can muster is "the West is worse". That isn't a defence of Russia's actions.

I'm a Russian apologist now?
Were you always this fucking dumb or did Trump winning the election give you an aneurysm from your impotent rage?

Let me spell this out for you since you're obviously too fucking dumb to get it. See the part of the board motto that says "mockery of stupid people"? That's what I'm doing, and you're one of the dumbasses I'm making fun of because you're too damn stupid to argue with.

[Flagg]

I'm well aware of the post WWI British Empire just drawing borders with no care as to tribal, ethnic, or religious populations. I used the term "Syrian people" because it was easier to type.

Yeah, and you were right to use it, but in that context... some part of "Syrian people" will inevitably suffer regardless of who wins. Sunni Arabs will not have a good life under a Shia-supported regime, and the opposite (ISIS or Islamic Front or the like) is probably even worse, as practice of Salafist control has shown...

Yeah, nothing about the ME is easy, it's all various shades of Crimson. But I take the view that a sectarian despot asshole over an Islamist theocratic asshole is better since the sectarian despot asshole does shit things to stay in power, as opposed to a holy crusade where anyone who doesn't share the belief that Muhammad shaved his ballsack with the grain as opposed to against it gets stoned, crucified, beheaded, etc.

And I get the sick irony of a first world westerner giving his opinion on why people should be tortured and/or killed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Russia is fixing the West's fuckups in the Middle East, deal with it.

What a thoughtful and nuanced rebuttal! You really put me in my place!

And again, the sole defence you slimy little apologists can muster is "the West is worse". That isn't a defence of Russia's actions.

I'm a Russian apologist now?
Were you always this fucking dumb or did Trump winning the election give you an aneurysm from your impotent rage?

On the minuscule off-chance that you're not just trying to bait me into another of your internet pissing contests...

Read the God damn quote. It was not directed at you, so I do not see why you should take it as being directed at you, unless aerius's views are identical to your own. And even then, it wasn't, strictly speaking, directed at you.

Let me spell this out for you since you're obviously too fucking dumb to get it. See the part of the board motto that says "mockery of stupid people"? That's what I'm doing, and you're one of the dumbasses I'm making fun of because you're too damn stupid to argue with.

Ah, okay, just trying to continue your personal feud with me then. In that case, I'll ignore anything else you say in this discussion, rather than rise to the bait.

Didn't notice that snippet on the first go. You dumbass, it was reported in the god damn Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... syria-iraq

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

I'm a dumbass for not magically knowing what your source was when you didn't state it?

I mean, I didn't actually think it was Infowars or Brietbart, but the point of that jab, if it flew over your head, is that their's no way to know the credibility of your source if you don't cite it.

You know better than this, if you weren't letting your nationalism and/or political ideology get in the way of your reason.

Oh, and also...

And I wonder just where exactly these people were when Sunni extremists were exterminating villages in Iraq, eastern Syria and slaughtering the Kurds in the north of Syria?..

Was that directed at me? Because do not imagine that I will let an insinuation that I support atrocities by Sunni extremists slide.

Unfortunately, you seem so welded to your fixation on the evils of American and the West (both real and inflated), and defeating them by any means, that you simply cannot register what I am actually saying. I am not defending atrocities by anyone- I am saying that someone else doing something horrible does not excuse Russia's actions.

Is "both sides are in the wrong" something your mind is capable of grasping?

That is not a defence and I'm not defending shit. You guys let a fucking theocratic slaver rape cult take over half of Syria and Iraq.

First of all, their are multiple causes for the current situation in the Middle East. I do not deny partial American responsibility (though I personally do not and did not support the war in Iraq).

I do deny full American responsibility, because that's a politically-motivated oversimplification of a very complex situation, but its also somewhat a moot point as far as weather Russia's actions are justified, and I'd rather not veer too far into a tangent on the extent of American/Western guilt, because my main point here is that the extent of America/Western guilt has little bearing on Russia's guilt- that one atrocity does not justify another.

As to weather your argument constitutes a defence... you immediately respond to an attack on the actions of Russia and Assad by citing American/Western atrocities, and I've seen the "us vs. them" approach often enough on this topic to draw my conclusions. It certainly appears as though you are trying to deflect criticism, and the focus of the debate, onto a target you prefer.

More on this later.

I'm positively sure that of course nobody among the architects of "Saudi Arabia first" and other smart ass policies will want to take the blame now, but that's what they are, "intelligence agencies" - spineless cowards who never take blame when the whole blows up in their face.

Governments usually try to dodge responsibility for their own fuck-ups, yes.

I am not expecting you to understand that it was simply a retort in kind. If we are going around throwing accusations and using rape-speak to describe war, why not pay in kind?

No, idiot, that was a retort for name-calling. If I'm a Chekist then he's an Islamist. Has about as much truth to it.

I can accept it as a response in kind. I don't actually recall what a Chekist is, so I couldn't have said weather it was a fair label to apply to you, but I'll take your word for it.

Your response does irritate me though because of how often opponents of Assad are characterized as Islamist as a propaganda tactic. That is the context which provoked my response.

Finally, if it were really the Fourth Reich, then yes, it cannot be allowed to win no matter what. And also, islamists are capital-B bad. Not just "strongmen" or "dictators". They carry a reprehensible and extremely dangerous Dark Age worldview, and it is much worse than mere warlordism or dictatorship.

So your argument is essentially that if one side is worse, the other side is justified in doing anything whatsoever, no matter how brutal, excessive, or blatantly a war crime, to stop them?

And if that is your argument, then you pretty clearly are trying to defend Russia's actions.

In any case, though, its going to be increasingly hard to play the "Russia vs. America/the West" card when the US President was illegally aided by Vladimir Putin in gaining power. From January 20th. on, all American atrocities are on Russia's head too.

I fully expect you to ignore that reality, but that won't make it any less true.

[mr friendly guy]

A topic about a very nebulous claim that Russia might organise refugees to go rape German women to swing the election against Merkel gets changed into one about Russia's actions in Syria.

Ok, next time America appears in a topic can I quickly bring up what they did in Iraq even if it has like, nothing to do with the topic? Or maybe the Gitmo. Because I really love red herrings.