Current Events in Russia

Rax Moscow said:
Haha, indeed.

But even on a non-religious level I have a big problem with this type of thinking.
Even atheists will tell you they have a sense of right and wrong, and a morality. I don't think Richard Dawkins would treat me in an uncharitable way just because he's not Christian. (He CERTAINLY would be upset at the idea that it's fine not to warn others of harm or death).

I still don't understand the point being made, and it's probably a minor comment that we shouldn't discuss further, but it was really bothering me last night as I was trying to go to bed, that I came across this evil idea in this Christian forum, that it is ok to do evil things if the law doesn't compell you otherwise. I mean, the thought that such a thing is even in the minds of fellow Christians, and that it has some sort of legitimacy at all, to anyone, is repellant to me.

I mean what are we doing, repeating the ideology of Victoria Nuland? Why?
Are we just stating that water is wet? That the US does bad things? Uh ok I guess.
Does that need to be said?

You know, the phillosophical basis behind not using the Lord's name in vain, and not swearing, is that by saying evil words, you are on some level reinforcing them and justifying them. This was a strongly held belief of the 1700s American protestants. Even repeating things like "It's ok to kill your fetus if you want" is a dangerous thing to say, even if you are claiming "oh that's just what immoral people think (instead, one should speak truth, such as "A fetus should be honored and nurtured, as it will becoming a child of God"). So if we are merely repeating immoral talking points, why? (Particularly when they are so obvious that most normies would not challenge them)

Now I'm sure you would say "Oh but I don't mean that about myself, I mean it about others" .. well ok I guess, but I don't really feel any better. I could also make the argument that "Hey I think some child molesters are actually sexually attracted to a child and not to adults and therefore for them its normal to molest. Oh I don't mean me, I just mean them." Hopefully that would receive a WTF response, which is what I'm feeling now.

I don't like the idea of Christians positing evil justifications. And I think in this case this evil boogeyman we have created for the sake of argument is even more evil than the actual US government itself: I mean if you told Ned Price "The US is under no obligation to warn others if they find out about a terrorist attack" I think his gay cheeks would turn even redder and he would be very hesitant to agree with you.

And that's proven in the actual facts here: Not only did the US provide some type of warning but they sent condolences afterwards. So even they don't believe this evil justification for "sometimes it's ok to let good people die if we have a good enough excuse."

Basically, the idea that "it's ok to be the opposite of the good Samaritan" for ANY reason, moral, political, or religious, is one I STRONGLY and FIRMLY reject, wholeheartedly, every single time.

I've had a few instances in business where someone has brought up an action that our firm could take, though it would be wrong or unethical to do, but the law allows it, and I firmly reject those every time. And I'm not even coming from a religious justification, but just a sense that our firm should act ethically period, no matter the religion or beliefs of any of our workers. I would not accept such an argument that "Oh but the law allows us to do evil" in any scenario (and again, I don't understand this "there is no law" argument either because it's not as if the USG follows its own laws so whether there is a law about sharing terrorism information, (which would be a very bizarre and weirdly specific law to have), is irrelevant).

I hope that the reaction of most of us here, upon hearing that there is nothing that compels someone to share information about impending harm or death, is to immediately say "NO!!!! WRONG!!!!!!"
Click to expand...
I guess, I grew to indifferent - which isn't a good thing - and the idea that the US government could withhold intelligence, even at the cost of innocent lives, doesn't surprise me at all. All things considered this wouldn't be even among top 10 evils of US foreign policy.
That aside.
I'm not exactly convinced that we gave Russia a genuine warning - this warning could have been just a memo sent from the US Embassy to the reception desk in the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry. Sure, sending condolences despite the state of our relations was a decent thing to do, but how genuine were they (neither Biden nor Blinken have called Putin), considering that we might have been involved in this attack ?
 
Last edited:
scorpion said:
This was very obviously a CIA/Ukraine operation, simply due to the fact that the perpetrators allowed themselves to be captured and quickly confessed that they were paid for the job. Actual Islamic jihadists would have wanted to be martyred and died fighting. This basically looks like the international version of the well-worn FBI domestic terrorism playbook: they stalk some lonely, low IQ guy online then convince him against his better judgment to attempt some "terrorist attack", and give him a fake bomb before immediately arresting him. In this case, however, they just trolled Islamic Telegram until they found a few guys (who literally seem borderline retarded based on the videos) and offered them money and weapons to do the same thing. Except they didn't stop them at the last minute.
Click to expand...
A lot of alt right media seems desperate to ignore the 'intel agencies' aspect of these kinds of attacks.
They are keen to make this all about lone Muslims and complaints about immigration etc. Telling them that their own governments are involved is seemingly Verboten.

I don't know how much bandwidth there is in the forum for it but there is a wider set of questions about this attack and these grand spectacles of violence happening in Paris London Moscow etc.
I can see that the cosmology earth-shape debate elsewhere has dismayed many forum members and so I don't know if people want to hear a more questioning approach as to who is behind this and why.

I can always leave the subject alone.
I got the hump a while back when I kept getting pushback for deviating from the official CNN/MSM version of what happened on 9-11 and it seemed that most of the forum doesn't like the idea of false flag operations, preferring to ascribe to the official narrative.

So I stomped off in a huff. Since then Ive returned to find out that both @stadtaffe and @PurpleUrkel extended an olive branch via DM, for which I am grateful.

So I don't know if people really want to hear about a more conspiratorial questioning of events, given that even questioning two planes bringing down three NYC WTC buildings is beyond the pale, then probably people don't want to hear ideas going further beyond the outline/suggestion that its was a CIA/UKR operation.

I'll wait to hear if people have any thoughts.
 
BarrontheTigerCat said:
So I don't know if people really want to hear about a more conspiratorial questioning of events, given that even questioning two planes bringing down three NYC WTC buildings is beyond the pale, then probably people don't want to hear ideas going further beyond the outline/suggestion that its was a CIA/UKR operation.

I'll wait to hear if people have any thoughts.
Click to expand...
It doesn't bother me if there is something who brought down the towers in its own thread. Not bothersome like people going on about nuclear bombs or space not existing or the moon landing being faked. Those first two are particularly bothersome but there are that many lies around these days that the towers topic could be worth exploring.

I've personally not looked that closely into it. Did go to the towers memorial once in NYC.

The deepest I have gone with the towers topic is that possibly American politicians were friends with the Bin Laden family and so did not go to great lengths to investigate a possible threat. Then there were some businesses in and insurers of the towers who had something to gain from that so maybe TPTB accidentally on purpose failed to investigate a threat.

It should however be in its own thread, not enormous monologues on it suddenly in other threads.
 
@BarrontheTigerCat If you post a 9-11 thread, make it a poll. I'd be very curious to see if a significant number of people here actually believe the government narrative as you suspect.

The Vietnam War was a catalyzing event for the boomer generation--it is essentially the period when people went from blindly trusting their government to questioning everything: "Don't Trust Anyone Over 30"

We have been through a lot in the past few years. Now, this forum leans more Republican, and they are generally more stubborn on accepting things about their government, but I think a lot of eyes are now opened that were closed before. As a point of reference, the "did we really go to the moon thread" in the old forum was close to 50/50 but I made a new post on this forum and the moon believers are currently at 3.8%.

The negative response you got may have been more form than content. I remember years ago you went off on me about something in a long accusatory post calling me a concern troll, but I just ignored it and came to like most of your posts later. (I'm not calling you out--I see it far more often than I would like here. Just pointing out that most negative reactions I see here are from people who are responding to other negative emotional posts and not the actual content or topic).

I've found the best method of discussion is the one developed thousands of years ago -- the Socratic method. If one asks questions one can generally have an enjoyable quest seeking truth.

Another good rule of thumb for us all is to remember whatever the issue (the Ukraine war, Covid, the moon, 9-11), it exists independent of any of the posters here. So it's a bit silly to make personal lines of attack--the truth exists whether we post about it or not.
 
Rax Moscow said:
Mi6 has a pretty strong Russian spy apparatus. The CIA's was pretty mediocre in the 1960s and is laughable today.

As for picking up such a plan... Unless one lives in a police state, it's pretty hard to prevent such a thing happening from time to time, if someone evil enough has the motivation. All it took was some firearms and a few thousand dollars. This kind of thing could happen tomorrow in the US, sad to say (and if you look at the news, it *does* happen all the time. We have considerably more deaths from random mass shooting events every year than Russia, though this was a particularly large event).

Should Russia have prevented it? I mean, yeah, everyone would like that if it were true. But I'm not sure I would want to live in the kind of society that could easily prevent such things. Should the US have prevented the Boston Marathon bombing? The Christmas Parade shooting? The DC sniper terrorist? The Superbowl parade shooting? Ask how they practically would have prevented such things, and then question whether you would want to live in such a society.


That's not what happened. No one has even claimed that. The whole idea of "we pick up conversations through spying which gives us pre-knowledge of crimes" is just propaganda (mostly western) governments put out to convince their populations to allow spying and censorship. This kind of spying isn't even fictional--you won't even find such absurd claims in the pages of Ian Fleming or George Orwell, both real life spy agents for their government.

No one claims that spy satellites and wiretapping actually makes things safer. They don't even try to claim that anecdotally or fictionally. It's not even a good plot for a Jason Bourne movie. Most spy satellite stuff is for censorship and corporate espionage purposes. (OK there was that one Tom Cruise movie about pre-crime but it was dystopian sci-fi set in the future)

Anyway, it's obvious to Russia and most observers that US/UK instigated, planned, or had general knowledge, even if they didn't perpetrate the crime or know the precise details. That's the obvious implication of the US/UK warnings. No one thinks the US/UK organically discovered this, or just happened to catch a phone call someone made where they talked about this plan to murder a bunch of Russians, and no one has made that claim either.
Click to expand...

The intelligence agencies collect metadata that search for keywords and it’s placed in a database. It’s not something predictive like in the Minority Report, but they will take action if it’s strong enough. I never said anything about total pre-knowledge of crimes, you’re just reading that into what I wrote. If this sort of stuff can’t happen, please explain this story:

 
There is zero chance the US alerted Russia to a potential terror attack out of the goodness of their hearts.

At best, it was a public threat to Russia essentially saying ‘we would hate to innocent Russians killed in a terror attack in Moscow…..”

It would be akin to you or I having an enemy who tells you “I hear someone might break into your house and kill your wife/kids…..”.

Then it happens.

This unfortunately are the realities of our world and high stakes intelligence agencies. CIA also created a false flag to gain support for the Vietnam war many decades ago as just one example, so what we consider evil is simply general operational guidelines for them.

What’s somewhat annoying is boomers still thinking we’re the good guys trying to genuinely protect democracy with good intentions.
 
Thomas More said:
I watched that video. You keep seeing the lying Western media claim Russia is a failing country. However, it looks like the Russian people have very high morale if this kind of song is so popular. Of course, I have been hearing this was the case in many different ways, but this song seems to confirm it. Russia seems to be entering a Golden Age.
Click to expand...
Turns out, the conflict between Russia and the west cured Russians from their inferiority complex towards the west. Before, majority of Russians (and Slavs in general) were bewitched by the west: everything and anything western was better by default - it comes from the collapse of the Soviet Union: since the west won the cold war, it was only natural for the Russians to believe it's superior and to try to emulate it. But now, after we imposed the most comprehensive sanction regime ever (Russia is the most sanctioned country in the world) and essentially cut off Russia from the west, it turns out it wasn't the end of the world for everyday Russians. Sure, there are inconveniences, after all Russia is still a developing country and many of its industries rely on foreign components, but the quality of life for the majority of Russian haven't decreased, it's improving actually thanks to the thriving economy - and it gives Russians much needed self-confidence.
 
Last edited:
Rational1 said:
The intelligence agencies collect metadata that search for keywords

If this sort of stuff can’t happen, please explain this story:

Click to expand...
The domestic spying is absolutely real.
In fact, it is the goal.
The people will never willingly submit to being spied upon. Therefore, these elaborate terrorism plot stories must be invented so that people are scared enough to give up their rights so that the government can spy on them.

It has absolutely nothing to do with stopping real crimes or halting saboteurs.

[sidetrack]
William Binney, who is the genius who designed most of the CIA's digital spying systems (including inventing Thinthread, the most effective automated wiretapping system yet, which was coincidentally shuttered less than a month before 9-11), and Edward Snowden both explain this in detail: mass surveillance doesn't make espionage easier: it actually makes it HARDER. (One common method of electronic countermeasures is Noise Obfuscation--it's the basic method used for everything from privacy plugins to downing Ukrainian drones--by overwhelming systems expecting data with vastly greater amounts of noise). Bart Kosko's book Noise has an entire chapter about noise obfuscation and its implications.
[/sidetrack]

Anyway, the idea that mass spying actually stops "terism" (and terrorism is a false flag event more times than not, anyway), is so false, one cannot even say it is fictional because no decent fiction is even written with such a silly plot.

Mass spying is done to censor and control the domestic population.

In the US, private citizens are now getting visits from federal police because of posts they made on social media. People are being arrested for using (legal) words under "hate crimes" laws which Americans always laughed at when Europe enforced them, only to find out they would be implemented in America without debate or notice.





Now this kinda stuff WAS fictional at first. It's now reality.

FYI One of the tweets was a woman complaining about someone who murdered her neice being set free. Not even controversial or politically incorrect.
 
Rax Moscow said:
The domestic spying is absolutely real.
In fact, it is the goal.
The people will never willingly submit to being spied upon. Therefore, these elaborate terrorism plot stories must be invented so that people are scared enough to give up their rights so that the government can spy on them.

It has absolutely nothing to do with stopping real crimes or halting saboteurs.

[sidetrack]
William Binney, who is the genius who designed most of the CIA's digital spying systems (including inventing Thinthread, the most effective automated wiretapping system yet, which was coincidentally shuttered less than a month before 9-11), and Edward Snowden both explain this in detail: mass surveillance doesn't make espionage easier: it actually makes it HARDER. (One common method of electronic countermeasures is Noise Obfuscation--it's the basic method used for everything from privacy plugins to downing Ukrainian drones--by overwhelming systems expecting data with vastly greater amounts of noise). Bart Kosko's book Noise has an entire chapter about noise obfuscation and its implications.
[/sidetrack]

Anyway, the idea that mass spying actually stops "terism" (and terrorism is a false flag event more times than not, anyway), is so false, one cannot even say it is fictional because no decent fiction is even written with such a silly plot.

Mass spying is done to censor and control the domestic population.

In the US, private citizens are now getting visits from federal police because of posts they made on social media. People are being arrested for using (legal) words under "hate crimes" laws which Americans always laughed at when Europe enforced them, only to find out they would be implemented in America without debate or notice.





Now this kinda stuff WAS fictional at first. It's now reality.

FYI One of the tweets was a woman complaining about someone who murdered her neice being set free. Not even controversial or politically incorrect.
Click to expand...

This comes into force in Scotland today - I wonder how it will be before I post in UK Lunacy about the consequences:

 
As terrible as that is, at least you know what the rules are.
America doesn't have speech laws.
We don't have hate crimes.
We don't have government censorship laws.

So you really don't know you're doing anything wrong, up until the point where they arrest you.

As little as 5 years ago, the idea of the government "banning Tiktok" would have been so absurd, even the most hardcore pro-censor advocate would laugh at and say "Hah, well as much as I would love to do that, the US Constitution does not allow it." Today, no politician is even questioning whether the government can violate its own constitution--they are all just williingly going along with the idea that it can.


Massachusetts District Attorney Anthony Gulluni held a dramatic press conference announcing that he was charging six whyte Southwick middle school students for witness intimidation and violating the civil rights of blacks after they allegedly made raycist jokes in a Snapchat chatroom. If found guilty of these crimes, the students could be sentenced to juvenile incarceration.


the decision to prosecute these children was only made after a full month of ceaseless lobbying from various media outlets and raycial agitation NGOs

So far, no civil liberties group has expressed interest in defending these students.
Click to expand...

The idea that using raycial slurs or even swastikas (Swastikas are something the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) DEFENDED people using in the Supreme Court case NSPA vs. Skokie ) would be breaking a law is something I would have laughed at last week. Thank goodness I don't have children, because I would not have warned them about this.

What you have is the early forms of a Soviet style censorship system. What we have in the USA is absolute lawlessness.

The idea of subjecting a 13-year-old to a criminal trial for saying something on the internet would be met with laughter or horror by most of the world, but in America this is becoming the norm. Since the 2020 George Floyd race riots, cases similar to the Southwick one have occurred in Connecticut, Louisiana, and elsewhere. In most of these incidents, the racial comments or slurs are shared privately among friends or in jest.
Click to expand...

Jailing someone for private thoughts is pretty darn close to thought-crime!
 
Last edited:
Rax Moscow said:
As terrible as that is, at least you know what the rules are.
America doesn't have speech laws.
We don't have hate crimes.
We don't have government censorship laws.

So you really don't know you're doing anything wrong, up until the point where they arrest you.

As little as 5 years ago, the idea of the government "banning Tiktok" would have been so absurd, even the most hardcore pro-censor advocate would laugh at and say "Hah, well as much as I would love to do that, the US Constitution does not allow it." Today, no politician is even questioning whether the government can violate its own constitution--they are all just williingly going along with the idea that it can.




The idea that using raycial slurs or even swastikas (Swastikas are something the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) DEFENDED people using in the Supreme Court case NSPA vs. Skokie ) would be breaking a law is something I would have laughed at last week. Thank goodness I don't have children, because I would not have warned them about this.

What you have is the early forms of a Soviet style censorship system. What we have in the USA is absolute lawlessness.



Jailing someone for private thoughts is pretty darn close to thought-crime!
Click to expand...
Scary stuff - as you say, I'm glad that I don't have children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top