Russia/Georgia Situation News & Updates

That would be the terrorsts attacking from South Ossetia-Hence S.O.

Who are the terrorists? The south osetians?

So, you admit it was S.O. terrorism and Russia's ignoring of it that caused the area to be attacked in responce-admittedly more responce than needed

What I do admit is that it was the south osetians fighting the georgians.
The south osetians wanted the georgians out of south osetia? because south osetia wants idependance?

Again, O.S. refers to South Ossetia-you don't seem to even know what area was making terrorist attacks that started this.

I happen to live in eastern europe.Ok so you state it was the south osetians that conducted this operations.I agree.

So, Georgia was supposed to accept terrorist attacking them and trying to take their terroritory-

- and just do nothing??

No they were supossed to get out of south osetia because they are not wanted there.Gee go figure , people living there are not georgian.
Did you know that south osetia was not under georgian rule before the start of the Soviet Union, you did not know that did you? Did you know that Georgia anexed south osetia with out the will of south osetians.
All that region is pro russian, they have russian citizen ship and I am refering to the population as a whole.

I agree, the seperatists and the do nothing Russian peacekeepers are completly to blame for the attack.

See that is where you are wrong.It was south osetians, it's not about separatists, people there all have russian passports.I know the region.

NO, It is the way of showing the "FACTS" of this situation.
Because you don't like the facts and want to ignore them, does not change the facts.

What facts?
Here are the facts for you.

South osetians wanted the georgians out.This was long overdue.So they
were fighting georgians in South Osetia.
Georgians did not give up so they bombed the capital killing old people woman and children that are "the separatist terrorists"

The separatists "woman old people and children" then ran across the border to Russia.
If I were Russia I would of gone all the way to Tibilisi.

I am sorry if some people don't like to read the actual cause of all this, but we present facts here and if someone does not like the facts, perhaps they should not read this post.

Hey you know.Can't make love if your not wanted.Same with Georgia and
South Osetia.South Osetia won't make love with Georgia.
It's like a relation ship.You know sometimes when the woman does not want to make out the man beats the crap out of the woman.Then she calls a stronger friend and he beats the crap out him.Same story here.

You state that you have facts but they worth nothing.Maybe you should check the story a bit more and read about the history of South Osetia.It has nothing to do with Georgia.Get you facts straight.I understand you, you are just trying to spill out your propaganda BS crap.At least you can do a better job than what you are trying to do now.

Originally posted by johnsky
reply to post by Standingby

 

Umm, I didn't detract from the fact the rebels were firing on Georgians...

but you DON'T LEVEL A CITY because of it!
That just doesn't make sense...

Whats next, shell Detroit because of gang violence?

Seriously, these are the actions of a madman. What sane person thinks they can re-take a province and get them to be pro-Georgian by shelling it's capital city?

If you have problems with insurgencies, separatists, etc. And they've become violent, then go in there, don't shell the entire city intentionally killing as many random civilians as you can.

Well put. If you are not wanted there leave.Georgia tried it's love on S.O with force.We love you that is why we are going to bomb the crap out of you out of love.To mention separatists were fighting the georgians there in S.O not elsewhere.

reply to post by Interestinggg

Oh mod really?
EXTREME T&C Violation?

Yes - because you called me (and everybody else) a 'piece of rotting meat' for reporting a breaking news story from the AFP.

Relax.

Originally posted by Standingby
How old are you really 12? Do you really think that opposing Ideologies have just started using propoganda. "Unprecedented" HHAHAH this is only a small sample, read your history books.

Comon man!

With respect, I request that you phrase any disagreements you may have with my choice of words in a more courteous fashion or, better yet, via u2u.

That said, please allow me to explain what I meant. I'm well aware that propaganda is a weapon employed by all sides in any conflict. What I meant was that at the very least, we usually see multiple independent witnesses such as journalists verifying or denying reports on the ground. Whether they can or cannot be trusted themselves is, of course, also an open question. I'm as suspicious of the media as the next person.

Nonetheless, what seems (perhaps incorrectly) nearly unprecedented to me personally in this particular conflict, is the near total dearth of such indepdent reporting or on the ground verification. The vast majority (I dare say nearly all) of reports during the actual conflict itself (Reports of Russian troop movements, often contradictory statements regarding Georgia's actions, rumors of towns being captured, etc.) cited the Georgian Interior Ministry or Russian military officials as sources. While that in and of itself isn't at all unusual, the fact that there was such a lack of reporters on the ground to verify or deny said reports, particularly when both sides' statements were so completely contradictory, is - at least in the context of other recent conflicts - in my opinion, outside the expected norms.

That's all I was saying. Please forgive me if my post in any way offended or disappointed you.

Meanwhile, just so this post serves a greater purpose than clarifying myself, and lest we all forget the humanitarian cost of this (and any) conflict:

GENEVA, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Nearly 100,000 people have been driven from their homes by the conflict in Georgia, the United Nations refugee agency said on Tuesday.

www.alertnet.org...

Note, however, that these figures are cited as being based upon Russian and Georgian government figures. (See what I mean?)

I would also like to reiterate once more that because of these media issues, we have no means of knowing for certain what really happened on the ground at both the start of, and during, the conflict. Thus arguing about what did or did not happen (again, this is not directed at any one member or group of members) will do little service to ascertaining the truth, and may detract from what has proved to be an imminently informative thread and a useful resource.


[edit on 8/12/2008 by AceWombat04]

reply to post by AceWombat04



Hey Wombat, Great Post man!

MY apologies for the derisive comment, after your thorough explanation, I rescind my comment.

Very well put together!

Sky news: Sarkozy and georgian pm to have news conferance within the hour..

So, you admit it was S.O. terrorism and Russia's ignoring of it that caused the area to be attacked in responce-admittedly more responce than needed

I've got an issue with this statement.

This statement makes it seem like Russia was supposed to be Georgia's personal police for South Ossetia.


If Russia had stepped in and started firing on South Ossetians, then they'd REALLY be viewed as evil.

Exactly how do you propose Russia could have stopped the South Ossetians from firing on Georgian military units? They're in South Ossetia, within Georgia, not Russia.

Russia responded to the shelling of South Ossetia. Which is a blatant over-use of power against a civilian populace. I don't care what the separatists were doing, you simply don't intentionally kill civilians do deliver your message.

With that being said, intentional attacks on a civilian populace by a military force IS a form of genocide.
Russia had every right to move in and try to put a stop to it.

Afterward, the Russian push further into Georgia, I do not agree with. They should have remained in the province that was being sieged by Georgian forces.

Luckily Russia has agreed to the French ambassadors deal, and is ceasing fire first.
I can only hope Georgia doesn't use this lull in fighting as a chance to re-open bombardment on another separatist city.

Originally posted by Truther
Sky news: Sarkozy and georgian pm to have news conferance within the hour..

Ah good. Sarkozy will be delivering the Georgian side of the peace deal.

Russia has already agreed to their side of the bargain, let's hope Georgia agrees to theirs.

In all cases, the deal seems pretty fair. It places everyone back where they were prior to the conflict, giving them a chance to take a different path.

What I find interesting is Wombat, myself and others keep repeating the same message in the threads and still we keep arguing about unverifiable "facts" on both sides.

I doubt we will ever get to the real story on this issue and I guarantee that there is a whole lot more to this story than we will ever find out about.

Again, I think Georgia was caught in the middle of a political manipulation between Russia and the US.

Could be political manipulation from the US, and I'm not one to defend the US or their actions, but there's no hard evidence of these ties, only motives at the moment.

[Edit to add]

OH YEAH, almost forgot... for those of you who don't have access to SKY news, or whatever live news source you want to access, you can find them on www.channelchooser.com under the news section.

(Local federal laws might prohibit you from using such a site, I'm not in your country, so use your own discretion)

[edit on 12-8-2008 by johnsky]

Sarkozy DID NOT instigate the halt of russian military activity. He arrived in Moscow just as the halt had been ordered. Russia is demanding that Georgia stays out of South Ossetia and aggrees to relent from using force in resolving the political situation.

abcnews.go.com...

more here: freeandindependent.wordpress.com...

reply to post by freeandindependent


If that's true, that's some incredibly coincidental timing.

Either way, Russia is ceasing fire... I really hope Georgia is going to as well.

It's promising regardless of who did what.

Originally posted by johnsky

So, you admit it was S.O. terrorism and Russia's ignoring of it that caused the area to be attacked in responce-admittedly more responce than needed

I've got an issue with this statement.

This statement makes it seem like Russia was supposed to be Georgia's personal police for South Ossetia.


If Russia had stepped in and started firing on South Ossetians, then they'd REALLY be viewed as evil.

Exactly how do you propose Russia could have stopped the South Ossetians from firing on Georgian military units? They're in South Ossetia, within Georgia, not Russia.

Russia responded to the shelling of South Ossetia. Which is a blatant over-use of power against a civilian populace. I don't care what the separatists were doing, you simply don't intentionally kill civilians do deliver your message.

With that being said, intentional attacks on a civilian populace by a military force IS a form of genocide.
Russia had every right to move in and try to put a stop to it.

Afterward, the Russian push further into Georgia, I do not agree with. They should have remained in the province that was being sieged by Georgian forces.

Luckily Russia has agreed to the French ambassadors deal, and is ceasing fire first.
I can only hope Georgia doesn't use this lull in fighting as a chance to re-open bombardment on another separatist city.

Johnsky,

With all due respect, the job of peacekeepers is to prevent two sides from attacking each other.

If those so-called- peacekeepers allow one side to attack the other side, unmolested-they are not peacekeepers.

They then become mercenaries protecting one side while it attacks the other.

How do they do it, they use whatever force is required to keep the attacking side from doing so, and in such, prevent a counter attack.

If they are not willing to do so, they are nothing more than observer's, NOT peace keepers.

I fully agree the Georgian response to the two days of terrorist attacks and the blind eye of the Russians was overdone.

Unfortunately since the Russian peace keepers were not doing their job, someone had to.

Now, as far as international convention, what about the S.O. attacking of Georgian civilians???

Does that not make it ok for Georgia to respond and protect its population???

Then, Russia, to prove how fair they are, bombed civilians in Georgia.

Btw, the Russians bombed a Georgian University.

I agree, Russian forces should never have entered Georgian soil.

News reports by AP and Dutch TV news say very differently.

They show 135 vehicles in Georgia proper.

I freely admit, Georgia was out of control with what they did, so long as we all agree that:

S.O. started this all by two days of attacks.
Russian peacekeepers did NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to stop them
Georgian troops had to stop them.

I wonder if all this loss of life could have been prevented by the Russian peacekeepers stopping the S.O. in the first place, like they were supposed to.

Originally posted by Truther
Sky news: Sarkozy and georgian pm to have news conferance within the hour..

Do you think the Georgian pm will go along with all the point that have been draw up or try and change somethings?

Knowing how unpredictable he is,I m not so sure.Time will tell.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by freemindmine]

[edit on 12-8-2008 by freemindmine]

reply to post by mrmonsoon


I'm still failing to see how you expected a few Russian peacekeeping outposts to prevent the Separatist attack on Georgian forces.

As for is it acceptable for the Separatists to attack Georgian forces, no, but they don't have an identifiable command structure, so finding those responsible is near impossible.

However, Georgia did not respond with the protection of it's citizens. It responded with the intentional killing en masse of a city of civilians.
So the claim that Georgia was protecting the civilians is a little unfair, especially when you consider that the civilian death toll from Georgian attacks exceeds other tolls by over a thousand civilian lives.

I understand everyone will have their opinion as to who is at fault, thats expected, and no opinion can really be wrong unless it's misinformed... I merely disagree with your opinion.

No side is in the right here. Russia would have been if they simply crushed the long range offensive capability of the Georgian military and fortified the city of Tshinvale (also now spelt Tshkinvali, Tschinvale, Tshinvali, and Tshinvale, nobody can seem to agree on an English spelling.)

If they had stuck with that option, placing the Russian 58th between South Ossetian separatists, and the Georgian forces, this could have ended allot better.

reply to post by johnsky


actually all russia have done is to secure SO from further aggression by flattening all military bases within a cordon - Gori , has not been flattened , and if you look its the military buildings that are gone , the rest of the place is perfectly fine

Poti hasn`t been taken , and theres no raveging army sitting inside Tbilsi - the whole lot are panicked lies from Georgia