Russian Embassy in Damascus Shelled for 2 Hours, 2nd time this month!

a reply to: elementalgrove

See, this is what I do not understand.

There is no point trying to scare Russians. They tend to have a fatalistic approach to life, as evidenced by their driving, examples of which can be found on YouTube with no effort what so ever. The simple fact is, that in order to put the fear of God into a Russian, one would have to do a damned sight more than lob some explosives into the postcode they happen to occupy. Put another way, it is extremely unlikely that something sufficiently troublesome as to remotely concern a Russian, would be something that they could live through.

a reply to: RAY1990

When I hear people like that Mike Morell speak the way he did, I always get that horrible feeling... Face value, officially we Westerners love to act all high and mighty, then people like this come out of the woodwork and gives a revealing glimpse of the morality behind closed doors.

Precisely.

The shelling that is happening around the Embassy, with all indications pointing towards Al Nusra, fits right in line with his approach of terrorizing the Russian in Syria.

Can you imagine if a Russian intelligence officer had ever threatened Americans in this manner? Let alone the equivalent of a deputy director!

a reply to: elementalgrove

The title reminds me of the movie Canadian Bacon. In one of the "news segments" the media announces that Canada has deployed 90% of its population along the US-Canadian border.

Personally it sounds like Russia (Putin) is trying to drum up domestic support. A couple more articles like this and the Russian people will be on board for sending in ground troops.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: elementalgrove

See, this is what I do not understand.

There is no point trying to scare Russians. They tend to have a fatalistic approach to life, as evidenced by their driving, examples of which can be found on YouTube with no effort what so ever. The simple fact is, that in order to put the fear of God into a Russian, one would have to do a damned sight more than lob some explosives into the postcode they happen to occupy. Put another way, it is extremely unlikely that something sufficiently troublesome as to remotely concern a Russian, would be something that they could live through.

And this is why his public threats are dangerous on a level that is barely comprehensible to any sane individual.

This man represents the American government, at a time of unprecedentedly high tension with Russia as it is because of Ukraine (western intelligence fingerprints) the ever increasing NATO memberships on their borders and the accompanying "anti-missile defense" systems, on top of the chaos of the middle east, and this is what he has to say?

Combine that with Hillary's rhetoric and it is no wonder why Russia is posturing and preparing the way they are, it appears that certain powerful interests of the west are hell bent upon starting this war.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: elementalgrove

The title reminds me of the movie Canadian Bacon. In one of the "news segments" the media announces that Canada has deployed 90% of its population along the US-Canadian border.

Personally it sounds like Russia (Putin) is trying to drum up domestic support. A couple more articles like this and the Russian people will be on board for sending in ground troops.

Lol!

That is good stuff right there Xacathd

And you know what you may be absolutely right... but honestly given the rhetoric of people like Morell can you really blame him?

It is the Russian population that is also at risk here, just like the rest of us.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: elementalgrove

Ah, I see. Thanks for that. No, you haven't berated me in the past, but I have seen your comments to others who do not take RT at face value. Regarding my other comments, you've started more than one thread telling how the 'Western Media' is lying about Syria, quoting RT as the source. Of course, if the 'Western Media' said the same thing about Russia, you would accuse them of lying. Just wondered if there was a reason you thought one had more integrity than the other.

BTW, 'here' for you isn't 'here' for me.

Those threads about the western media are backed with research that has exposed things such as propaganda in Iraq and flat out lies about Syria. Knowing people from Aleppo and understanding what their family is going through adds to the differing view I get about western media and events on the ground over there.

Being exposed to Western Media my entire life and observing how effective it is at drumming up war support on false pretenses, I believe it is only natural for me to critique it. Also urgent considering where we are at.

Russia does not currently have an empire of 800 bases around the globe and spend near a trillion dollars a year on war.

Add to that my research has led to the view that the western war machine and media as well as just about every industry is controlled by sick satanic elite and my disdain for western media may make more sense.

a reply to: elementalgrove

It's your apparent lack of similar disdain (at least to the same extent) for Russian media that is the interesting thing.

You didn't mind how they justified actions in Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine?

a reply to: uncommitted

I think the only rational position to take on the irrational position of both the Russian and US governments representatives and mouthpieces on the issues of the day, is that neither one can be trusted worth a damn, to tell the truth to their own people, leave alone present honesty to one another. This leads a thinking person to the conclusion that most, if not all that we hear from either side, is simply verbal smokescreen. Realistically speaking, both nations tend to make their money (or rather make money for their owners) by way of making war.

The proxy war situation that is the middle eastern crisis, is more likely to be a way for the arms manufacturers aligned to both nations, to continue to make vast sums of money, without either nations actual soil being threatened in any fashion what so ever, with the obvious cost being the lives and sanity of a great many people who stand to gain nothing no matter which way the chips fall, in the battles that they are in the middle of.

a reply to: uncommitted

You do also understand the role of the very intelligence agency I brought up in my OP had a role in each and every one of those situations right?

When one factors in the demeanor of Morell, it appears that this kind of policy is nothing new to said agency.

Who has been enemies with Russia since its inception, funnily enough immediately following Operation Paperclip at the end of WW2.

Even when one looks to their actions across the globe, in South America/Africa/Asia, it is always the same MO for destabilizing countries that are not friendly.

a reply to: elementalgrove

Ok, last response on this as I can see how you approach things. So, you will only blame American agencies now for the attacks Russia has made on other countries? Fine, I'm not here to argue - opinions are exactly that and you seem fairly entrenched in yours.

a reply to: uncommitted

I blame American agencies for their roles in funding oppositions that lead to the chaos that befalls a country yes.

As far as Russia's role in those countries, no they are no saint.

Civilians of countries have been pawns upon the board for millennia, it is and always has been tragic.

a reply to: RedMenace16

exits that way bro

Saw this earlier today.. all i can say is god help us, those few in the US instructing the rebel groups have truley psychotic desires or they've lost their mind.

war is upon us

a reply to: uncommitted

For the same reason that people take the state propaganda from the US press at face value?

If this is true, watch Damascus. It is mentioned by name in prophecy.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: uncommitted

For the same reason that people take the state propaganda from the US press at face value?

If this is true, watch Damascus. It is mentioned by name in prophecy.

For your first line, not really. If you are in America and take US press at face value then...................... actually that would be very strange as all press by its nature will (hopefully) start with something borne in fact and then glamourise it to make it more 'sexy' for their readership and/or apply their own editorial slant to the fact based on the leanings of the papers proprietor and the political leaning of their own demographic. If someone agreed with all of the press of any country (where of course the press isn't 100% state owned) then they would be somewhat mildly schizophrenic to say the least.

You will of course call me naive, but do you really think any press in your country is as absolutely and unapologetically bound to its government as RT (formally Russia Today - child of Pravda) is? Really???

For your second line, it's hardly surprising Damascus is named given its place in ancient history.

a reply to: uncommitted

Given the recent Wikileaks, our press is as bound to the current government as RT. it's just a better hidden fact.

As for Damascus, yes it is ancient, but it has never been destroyed to the point of becoming uninhabitable. That prophecy in Isaiah 17 has not yet been fulfilled. Damascus is a still remains a city.

SPAM removed by admin