Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again?

[deisik]

It's not about russia, it's about dumb migration policy which slowly kills european nations. I would prefer to see any hostile society in europe, rather than another sharia state.

Hostile society in Europe? Are you kidding? Did you forget that Third Reich and Napoleon's empire were not sharia law states. Lol, they were not even islamic...

[Balthazar]

It's not about russia, it's about dumb migration policy which slowly kills european nations. I would prefer to see any hostile society in europe, rather than another sharia state.

Hostile society in Europe? Are you kidding? Did you forget that Third Reich and Napoleon's empire were not sharia law states. Lol, they were not even islamic...

It seems that you haven't read my message properly. It's not a joke and I'd prefer to see some kind of Third Reich instead of these "soon to be sharia" states. It's just my choice between two evils, because this option won't cause any sort of irreparable degradation of society, unlike religion based platforms.

[LostDutchman]

A few days ago I watched a 2-year old Russian documentary, commemorating the 200th anniversary of the war of 1812, about the information war, waged before and during the French invasion of Russia in 1812. The Film is called "The War of 1812. The First information War" and can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyeGXPJc4ms (it's even passably watcheable with automatic English captions)

The film revolves around the report by Polish General Sokolnitskij that was presented to Napoleon on the 10th of February 1812 and discovered in French military archives in 1996. The report details how Napoleon should proceed conquering and dividing Russia, how to use locals. The plans for compartmentalisation of Russia were well-defined. South-Western Russia (including Crimea), would become French state of Napoleonida, with Poland expanded South and several French or Polish-governed counties created as buffers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vyeGXPJc4ms#t=457). Napoleon went along with the plans, with the slight alteration - he intended to rally Poles and use them as the frontal strike force, commonly known as cannon Fodder.

What struck me the most was the bit that said that Napoleon should ensure setting Ukraine and Russia head to head against each other, and should bribe Don Cossacks, as they hate Russians. Napoleon discovered belatedly that this was not the case.

Napoleon, prior to the military campaign, ran a massive information/propaganda war in Europe, centralising control of most of the newspapers in his hands, and portraying Russia as someone on the verge of conquering the whole Europe, so it was only right for him, Napoleon, to strike pre-emptively first. At the same time, and to that end, he invented the fake Testament of Peter the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Russavia/Testament). This "testament" was subsequently used prior to invasion of Russia in WWI and WWII.

I am seeing similar patterns now: An uprising of Russophobic press in Western mass media, depicting Russia as an aggressor, poised to take over the Europe. When passing through Great Britain the other week, I saw a cover of one of the magazines, showing a stylized map of Russia as a red bear with gaping maw, swallowing Ukraine, and the big captions title "INSATIABLE!". Next will come (or already coming) calls to isolate, sanction and pre-emptively strike Russia, "for the good of Europe".

Here is a report on that "Insatiable" cover: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2014/04/21/insatiable-idiocy-from-the-economist-on-what-to-do-about-russia-n1826834

Before 1941 there were also "worried" calls that Soviet Union has too many troops on its Western borders, and that it should pull back. This time, it seems Putin is not as stupid as Stalin was. At the same time NATO pulls its military closer to Russia, relocating more and more troops to its old and newly conquered bases in Baltics, Poland, Yugoslavia (Black Sea), and Georgia.

It feels like a great war is in the air and NATO is pushing hard for a trigger, seemingly having slated Ukraine to play such role. This would explain why NATO consequently ignores Russia's calls for de-escalation of the tension in Ukraine and demands that US brings their puppets in Kiev to heel.

If I start seeing mentions of the Testament of Peter the Great in the Western media, then I will know for sure that war is only a few months or weeks away...


More of my musings from a Russian perspective in a post further down:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584031.msg6891605#msg6891605

For the answer to all of your speculation, go here:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

[Nemo1024]

For the answer to all of your speculation, go here:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

I wonder if those hats helped people, who got bombed and shot during the previous invasions. 

In Soviet Union, at least, prior to German invasion, there was a lot of unspecific uneasiness and feeling of "there'll be a war" that people couldn't quite put their finger on.

If tin foil hats were invented then, I wonder how many would have been advised to wear them, right up to that radio announcement.

[deisik]

It's not about russia, it's about dumb migration policy which slowly kills european nations. I would prefer to see any hostile society in europe, rather than another sharia state.

Hostile society in Europe? Are you kidding? Did you forget that Third Reich and Napoleon's empire were not sharia law states. Lol, they were not even islamic...

It seems that you haven't read my message properly. It's not a joke and I'd prefer to see some kind of Third Reich instead of these "soon to be sharia" states. It's just my choice between two evils, because this option won't cause any sort of irreparable degradation of society, unlike religion based platforms.

Ok, Iran is a sharia law state, right? And right now it seems to be Russia's ally... How come?

Also, you talk about an irreparable degradation of society, but which society do you talk about, or, rather, do you feel yourself a part thereof? If so, how about the title of this thread, i.e. about West (not East) invading Russia again?

[bryant.coleman]

It's not about russia, it's about dumb migration policy which slowly kills european nations. I would prefer to see any hostile society in europe, rather than another sharia state.

I have good news for you. 

European Border Agency Reports Surge in Illegal Migration

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/31/world/europe/european-border-agency-reports-surge-in-illegal-migration.html?_r=0

[Balthazar]

Ok, Iran is a sharia law state, right? And right now it seems to be Russia's ally... How come?

Wrong, Iran is a republic. It has legislative, judicial and executive bodies of power, while traditional sharia state is a theocratic monarchy. Iranian leaders are smart enough to keep radical elements outside their country.

Also, you talk about an irreparable degradation of society, but which society do you talk about

Look at the history of middle east. Typical doctrine from this period:

If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them.

Rich culture, which has accumulated a lot of knowledge in medicine, astronomy, philosophy, chemistry, physics was almost completely destroyed during the period of Islamization. It's unfortunately, but modern Iran is a pale shadow of itself.

do you feel yourself a part thereof? If so, how about the title of this thread, i.e. about West (not East) invading Russia again?

You've forgot that Washington's Obkom likes to use islamic radicals to destabilize their competitors. The notable examples are first and second chechen wars shouldn't be forgotten as examples of western intervention.

[Nemo1024]

Posting it here as well, specifically for the quote in bold. Napoleon and Hitler used similar rhetoric in their time!

An Op-Edge with Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong.

Brave old (exceptionalist) world
http://rt.com/op-edge/162504-us-exceptional-military-aggression-russia/

“I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.” So there it is, straight from the lion’s mouth, as in US President Barack Obama.

The rest are details: deadly details, as in the US military remaining “at the core” of the exceptional worldview; the Pentagon reserving for itself “the power to launch unilateral attacks when America’s interests are directly threatened”; eight or nine proxy wars deployed in the immediate future with no end in sight; and the most startling admission – that the “fulcrum” of US foreign policy from now on will be to curb “aggression” by Russia and China.

[deisik]

Ok, Iran is a sharia law state, right? And right now it seems to be Russia's ally... How come?

Wrong, Iran is a republic. It has legislative, judicial and executive bodies of power, while traditional sharia state is a theocratic monarchy. Iranian leaders are smart enough to keep radical elements outside their country.

Iran is declared a republic (and islamic at that), but don't let yourself get fooled by names or titles. The supreme power in Iran belongs to ayatollahs. Do you know who they are?

Quote from Wikipedia on judicial system of Iran:

After the 1979 upheaval of the Pahlavi Dynasty by the Islamic Revolution, the system was greatly altered. The legal code is now based on Shi'a Islamic law or sharia, although many aspects of civil law have been retained, and it is integrated into a civil law legal system

Any objections?

[bryant.coleman]

Iran is declared a republic (and islamic at that), but don't let yourself get fooled by names or titles. The supreme power in Iran belongs to ayatollahs. Do you know who they are?

Yes. Iran is an Islamic nation. But unlike the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they don't splurge their money to fund the Jihadis all over the world. They never interfere in the politics of other nations.

[deisik]

Iran is declared a republic (and islamic at that), but don't let yourself get fooled by names or titles. The supreme power in Iran belongs to ayatollahs. Do you know who they are?

Yes. Iran is an Islamic nation. But unlike the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they don't splurge their money to fund the Jihadis all over the world. They never interfere in the politics of other nations.

Oh, really? What about the Revolutionary Guards fighting in Syria? What about a fatwa proclaimed by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1988 requiring Salman Rushdie's execution for money reward (and which was reaffirmed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2005)? 

[bryant.coleman]

Oh, really? What about the Revolutionary Guards fighting in Syria? What about a fatwa proclaimed by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1988 requiring Salman Rushdie's execution for money reward (and which was reaffirmed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2005)? 

1. The revolutionary guards have no role in the Syrian conflict. The Assad government would have already won the conflict, had the revolutionary guards were on their side. They are stationed inside Iran.

2. Did the Ayatollah or the Iranian secret service sent any assassin to murder Rushdie? The fatwa was just a PR exercise. Rushdie was banished from Iran. That's all.

[deisik]

do you feel yourself a part thereof? If so, how about the title of this thread, i.e. about West (not East) invading Russia again?

You've forgot that Washington's Obkom likes to use islamic radicals to destabilize their competitors. The notable examples are first and second chechen wars shouldn't be forgotten as examples of western intervention.

You also seem to have forgotten that it was not muslims who bombed Yogoslavia. The same Europe that you consider the lesser of the two evils (society there, to be precise)...

[KimNam]

i don't think so. look at cold war, USA (and NATO) never invade to russia directly.
it's very dangerous to invade nuclear country. it will ignite nuclear war

Iran is declared a republic (and islamic at that), but don't let yourself get fooled by names or titles. The supreme power in Iran belongs to ayatollahs. Do you know who they are?

Yes. Iran is an Islamic nation. But unlike the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they don't splurge their money to fund the Jihadis all over the world. They never interfere in the politics of other nations.

how about hezbollah in lebanon?
they got military and financial aid from iran.

[deisik]

Oh, really? What about the Revolutionary Guards fighting in Syria? What about a fatwa proclaimed by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1988 requiring Salman Rushdie's execution for money reward (and which was reaffirmed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2005)? 

1. The revolutionary guards have no role in the Syrian conflict. The Assad government would have already won the conflict, had the revolutionary guards were on their side. They are stationed inside Iran

I'm sorry but Wikipedia says otherwise:

Prior to the Syrian war, Iran had between 2,000 and 3,000 IRGC officers stationed in Syria, helping to train local troops and managing supply routes of arms and money to neighboring Lebanon.

General Qa`ani -Senior officer of Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution – said: “If the Islamic Republic was not present in Syria, the massacre of civilians would have been twice as bad. Had physically and non-physically stopped the rebels from killing many more among the Syrian people.”

Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers, along with fellow Shi'ite forces from Hezbollah and members of Iran's Basij militia participated in the capture of Qusair from rebel forces on 9 June 2013. In 2014, Iran increased its deployment of IRGC in Syria

[deisik]

2. Did the Ayatollah or the Iranian secret service sent any assassin to murder Rushdie? The fatwa was just a PR exercise. Rushdie was banished from Iran. That's all.

There were attempts to kill Rushdie. Whether or not the Iranian secret service prepared or ayatollahs financed these attempts (which according to your prior claims they wouldn't) still remains to seen...

In any case the reward (now over 3 million dollars) has been set!

[Balthazar]

After the 1979 upheaval of the Pahlavi Dynasty by the Islamic Revolution, the system was greatly altered. The legal code is now based on Shi'a Islamic law or sharia, although many aspects of civil law have been retained, and it is integrated into a civil law legal system

Any objections?

Again, Iran doesn't use sharia law. This state uses a set of laws, which were passed by legislative body, called Islamic Consultative Assembly. Members of legislative body are elected through national voting. And nobody cares what writers of article on Wikipedia are thinking about that.  Of course almost 100% of MPs are muslims, that's why their law is similar to proposed by sharia system, but this doesn't mean that they're using sharia law.

Classic islamic states are proposed to use sharia law directly and any modification or interpretation of law by people is strictly prohibited. Only clergymen are allowed to do this.

P.S. It's interesting that ~8% of iranian MPs are women.

[deisik]

After the 1979 upheaval of the Pahlavi Dynasty by the Islamic Revolution, the system was greatly altered. The legal code is now based on Shi'a Islamic law or sharia, although many aspects of civil law have been retained, and it is integrated into a civil law legal system

Any objections?

Again, Iran doesn't use sharia law. This state uses a set of laws, which were passed by legislative body, called Islamic Consultative Assembly. Members of legislative body are elected through national voting. And nobody cares what writers of article on Wikipedia are thinking about that.  Of course almost 100% of MPs are muslims, that's why their law is similar to proposed by sharia system, but this doesn't mean that they're using sharia law.

Classic islamic states are proposed to use sharia law directly and any modification or interpretation of law by people is strictly prohibited. Only clergymen are allowed to do this.

You have to bring forward something more substantial than mere words. You deny Wikipedia and its sources the authority. Ok then, but how can I consider your words authoritative as well?

Nevertheless, here's another quote from Wikipedia on the Iranian judicial system:

According to some Iranian officials, the judiciary of Iran does not follow Sharia law, but it is civil law ratified by the Parliament. However, all agree that multiple aspects of sharia law are observed in the legal system.

According to one source, the new laws of the Islamic Republic "modify the sharia in three significant ways."

They give the state the "ultimate say" over the death penalty by allowing a new High Court to review death sentences passed by lower magistrates." In contrast, sharia in "its pure form" had no appeals system and gave local judges final say. However, virtually all other countries using sharia law now have an appeals system. While in lesser sentences, the judges verdict would be final, in more serious crimes, the sentence could be appealed to the Provincial Appeals Court. In a capital crime, it would be appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation. Sometimes criminals get multiple appeals that last for years, depending upon the evidence against them along with "reasonable doubt". Retrials can be ordered, typically in the same court that convicted the prisoner.

Laws allow circumstantial evidence to be used in deciding a case "under the rubric of 'the judge's reasoning.'"

Third, the legal system has introduced long-term imprisonment - which was also traditionally not used in sharia law - under 'discretionary punishment.' Traditionalist judges, however, "continue to prefer corporal punishments ..." in sentencing. In 2008, the then Head of Judiciary Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi (considered a moderate) asked judges to carry out more corporal punishment and less imprisonment, because "long term imprisonment is expensive, is not effective, and prevents criminals from reintegrating into society"

[Nemo1024]

Aren't we getting slightly off topic? 

[bryant.coleman]

I'm sorry but Wikipedia says otherwise:

I don't trust Wikipedia, because I have first hand experience with it. I was an active member of Wikipedia until 2011, and was forced to quit because I opposed to paid editing in certain sections. So rather than posting the Wikipedia articles, give me some reliable source for the IRG involvement.