PDA

View Full Version : Vladimir Putin Threatens West with Russias 5,000 Nuclear Warheads



Fantastika
20-10-2014, 16:16
Try Googling this "Vladimir Putin Threatens West with Russias 5,000 Nuclear Warheads" you will get quite a few hits. I saw it on Yahoo! "news", yesterday but it's been removed.

Seems that Dmitry Medvedev was in New Zealand, and the New Zealand prime minister, John Key, made a joke about Russian missiles. Medvedev replied with another joke, but the media decided Medvedev's joke was not a joke, but that Key's joke was a joke.

However, the real joke in this latest Russia-bashing perversion of the truth is the bipolar war-mongering, and stupid, Western media, since Russia only has 1600 nuclear warheads.

FatAndy
20-10-2014, 16:56
since Russia only has 1600 nuclear warheads.
...which are based on strategic triade - ground-based ballistix, submarine-based ballistix and AS missiles with nuclear warheads on strategic bombers (Tu-160, Tu-95xx, Tu-22xx).

Tactic nukes (3-10 kT, 50-500 km range) and small range nukes (0.5-2 kT, 5-50 km range) are not calculated here, but we still have them and US still has them too.

Yaks
20-10-2014, 16:57
is there anything you get right? Russia has 1600 deployed nuclear warheads, 6400 nuclear warheads in reserve giving a total of 8000.

Plus you still have Russia with land based MIRV missiles, meaning one missile can have 12 warheads.

Fantastika
20-10-2014, 17:53
is there anything you get right? Russia has 1600 deployed nuclear warheads, 6400 nuclear warheads in reserve giving a total of 8000.

Plus you still have Russia with land based MIRV missiles, meaning one missile can have 12 warheads.

"I never get anything right"? Look in a mirror.

I am just copying your well-loved and admired Western media - articles I quoted. Where are your 'facts" coming from?

From Washington Times, Epoch Times, many others: "Russia now has 1,643 warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers. The United States has 1,642..."

You're also wrong about MIRV's - Russian MIRV has from 3-10 warheads, US MIRV has 3-12. Is there anything you get right?

As far as having nukes "in reserve" - in a 30-minute war, there would not be enough time to get them to a delivery system. They would be the first targets and quickly destroyed before they could be used.

Fantastika
20-10-2014, 18:10
is there anything you get right?

If I am wrong, so is the Western media, who spread this around without checking the facts. Russia has 1640 USABLE (deployed) nukes, however the repeated headlines say "5000," which is not the deployed total and not the deployed + reserve total. Just more proof the Western media places more importance on its "Russia = Putin, and both are bad" agenda, above reporting factually.

Remington
20-10-2014, 19:30
Doesn't matter if its 1,000 or 8,000 warheads. It's enough to destroy this world several times.

Armoured
20-10-2014, 19:51
If I am wrong, so is the Western media, who spread this around without checking the facts. Russia has 1640 USABLE (deployed) nukes, however the repeated headlines say "5000," which is not the deployed total and not the deployed + reserve total. Just more proof the Western media places more importance on its "Russia = Putin, and both are bad" agenda, above reporting factually.

I did exactly what you suggested, and pasted this into google. Sure, I get a bunch of hits.

But they all seem to trace back to _one single article_ in the Sydney Morning Herald. The rest are just reworked versions of this same article.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/vladimir-putin-ups-the-ante-with-reminders-russia-is-a-nuclear-power-20141017-117pzr.html

And they all seem to be either fringe media or just media sites/end of times/etc. Reddit, Inquisitr (whatever that is), Epoch Times, DailyPaul, whatever.

No comment on the warheads issue. But it basically comes down to a single article that was picked up by others, and not even by major sites (judging by what is there now).

Maybe it's an accurate criticism of the SMH (don't know about the specific issue) though.

So I think making sweeping comments about 'the Western media' based on this single article may be overdoing it.

Fantastika
20-10-2014, 20:11
My point in posting this wasn't about how many nukes there are.

The point is the media bias and hypocrisy - when The prime Minister of a Western country made a joke, it was considered a joke. When Medvedev made a similar joke, it was treated as a serious threat.

Russian Lad
20-10-2014, 20:13
Fantastika, just yesterday Rossiya1 reported that the US and ISIS are equally the same evil formations, a true cancer on the surface of the world, Kiselev was making this point for half an hour, offering a lot of proof. I didn't see any Western media snooping around. Here is a short clip from this instructive program:
Киселёв : Барак Хусейн Обама - YouTube

Fantastika
20-10-2014, 20:20
I did exactly what you suggested, and pasted this into google. Sure, I get a bunch of hits.

But they all seem to trace back to _one single article_ in the Sydney Morning Herald. The rest are just reworked versions of this same article.


Amazing! You figured out how the Western media works. All stories have a single point of origin. The media chooses what to copy and reprint. The media is out there trying to create as much negativism (about Russia) and as much positive spin (about Obama) as it can. One biased story, in one newspaper, is not checked, just simply reprinted and recopied, spreading all over the world in seconds.

Armoured
20-10-2014, 20:26
Amazing! You figured out how the Western media works. All stories have a single point of origin. The media chooses what to copy and reprint. The media is out there trying to create as much negativism (about Russia) and as much positive spin (about Obama) as it can. One biased story, in one newspaper, is not checked, just simply reprinted and recopied, spreading all over the world in seconds.

The point is that (as far as I can tell) it was not really picked up by many, if any at all, traditionally reliable sources. Most of the major outlets stayed away from this story. Again as far as I can tell, none of them are print media or other major media. Certainly it seems none of them have editorial capacity - they're really just copy-pasters.

So if by 'the Western media' you mean 'the Internet', sure.

Fantastika
20-10-2014, 20:30
Fantastika, just yesterday Rossiya1 reported that the US and ISIS are equally the same evil formations, a true cancer on the surface of the world, Kiselev was making this point for half an hour, offering a lot of proof. I didn't see any Western media snooping around. Here is a short clip from this instructive program:
Киселёв : Барак Хусейн Обама - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdXNZR9dOKg)


Thanks, but I was talking about Western media, not Russian media, not the really repressive Chinese media, and not the truly psychotic Middle-Eastern media. I am knowledgeable only about American media.:suspect:

I thought Obama was blocking media from talking to US forces bombing or deployed in Iraq-Syria...

Armoured
20-10-2014, 20:34
Thanks, but I was talking about Western media, not Russian media, not the really repressive Chinese media, and not the truly psychotic Middle-Eastern media. I am knowledgeable only about American media.:suspect:

I don't see a single major Western or American media outlet that's picked up this story.

Fantastika
20-10-2014, 20:39
The point is that (as far as I can tell) it was not really picked up by many, if any at all, traditionally reliable sources. Most of the major outlets stayed away from this story. Again as far as I can tell, none of them are print media or other major media. Certainly it seems none of them have editorial capacity - they're really just copy-pasters.

So if by 'the Western media' you mean 'the Internet', sure.

Exactly! :10806: The media today is just "copy-pasters." Cntrl-C, Cntrl-V.

I saw "Russia Threatens Nuclear War with 5000 Warheads" as lead story on Yahoo! yesterday, it has disappeared today. Guess they thought it was a bit much. Yahoo! has millions of readers (people who take it seriously), most of them of low intelligence. I only use Yahoo! as mail server, I try to rush past the index page without being distracted by the shock, violence, 2-headed dogs, and other weird stuff they put on it. "Editorial capacity"? What is that? Tell Yahoo! they need something like that.

Your "traditionally reliable source" what is that? :rofl: Example? :rofl:

Sorry, I'm not laughing at you, I wondering where it disappeared, too.

FatAndy
20-10-2014, 20:45
Fantastika, just yesterday Rossiya1 reported that the US and ISIS are equally the same evil formations, a true cancer on the surface of the world
:agree: Everything is correct, the beast entity of American imperializom and its "children" is disclosed more than fully. :ok:

But again, bro - meat, wine and girls still are better than TV ;)

FatAndy
20-10-2014, 20:45
Fantastika, just yesterday Rossiya1 reported that the US and ISIS are equally the same evil formations, a true cancer on the surface of the world
:agree: Everything is correct, the beast entity of American imperializom and its "children" is disclosed more than fully. :ok:

But again, bro - meat, wine and girls still are better than TV ;)

Fantastika
20-10-2014, 20:56
I don't see a single major Western or American media outlet that's picked up this story.

The Sydney newspaper, Yahoo! and Examiner.com are not major?

Try googling (news) "Putin Threatens World War 3" 18,900 hits, 2,421 more articles under subhead "World War 3: Vladimir Putin Threatens United States..."

Russian Lad
20-10-2014, 21:02
But again, bro - meat, wine and girls still are better than TV

Ok, I am ready for Fantastika, a beefsteak and a glass of Georgian Kindzmarauli. Fantastika, would you like to have sex with me? I think you must be hot. My warhead is about to explode.

Fantastika
20-10-2014, 21:24
Ok, I am ready for Fantastika, a beefsteak and a glass of Georgian Kindzmarauli.

Sorry, RL, Fantastika is not here, she is attending a southern California university, on "full boat" scholarship. I am merely helping to sponsor. Hopefully, she may become sports star soon.

Russian Lad
20-10-2014, 21:49
Sorry, RL, Fantastika is not here, she is attending a southern California university, on "full boat" scholarship. I am merely helping to sponsor. Hopefully, she may become sports star soon.

I don't understand. You are her mother/father or someone who hijacked the account?:) Can you merely sponsor me as well? I wanna be a star too.

Uncle Wally
20-10-2014, 22:06
Doesn't matter if its 1,000 or 8,000 warheads. It's enough to destroy this world several times.


One is too many for any country.

Fantastika
20-10-2014, 22:12
I don't understand. You are her mother/father or someone who hijacked the account?:) Can you merely sponsor me as well? I wanna be a star too.

You are already star, you don't need sponsor.

Uncle Wally
20-10-2014, 22:16
Fantastika, just yesterday Rossiya1 reported that the US and ISIS are equally the same evil formations, a true cancer on the surface of the world, Kiselev was making this point for half an hour, offering a lot of proof. I didn't see any Western media snooping around. Here is a short clip from this instructive program:
Киселёв : Барак Хусейн Обама - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdXNZR9dOKg)



Well yeah. America trained them. Armed them and use them as an excuse to bomb Syria. You should see how many Americans are being killed in America now by cops!

Nearly 2,400 people killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, only 84 confirmed Al-Qaeda militants

http://www.sott.net/article/287530-Nearly-2400-people-killed-by-US-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-2004-only-84-confirmed-Al-Qaeda-militants

Fantastika
20-10-2014, 22:59
Well yeah. America trained them. Armed them and use them as an excuse to bomb Syria. You should see how many Americans are being killed in America now by cops!

Nearly 2,400 people killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, only 84 confirmed Al-Qaeda militants

http://www.sott.net/article/287530-Nearly-2400-people-killed-by-US-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-2004-only-84-confirmed-Al-Qaeda-militants

Well, that brings us back to Square One - the Western media is not doing its job.

fenrir
20-10-2014, 23:19
Well yeah. America trained them. Armed them and use them as an excuse to bomb Syria. You should see how many Americans are being killed in America now by cops!

Nearly 2,400 people killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, only 84 confirmed Al-Qaeda militants

http://www.sott.net/article/287530-Nearly-2400-people-killed-by-US-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-2004-only-84-confirmed-Al-Qaeda-militants

Hey, how many civilians did Russia kill in Afghanistan? When the US reaches anywhere near that total, then you can talk.

JanC
21-10-2014, 01:41
Try googling (news) "Putin Threatens World War 3" 18,900 hits, 2,421 more articles under subhead "World War 3: Vladimir Putin Threatens United States..."

You'll find that if you google something specific enough or with enough words you'll see a crapton of ''hits'' for just about everything.

There is plenty of sensationalist media out there, that's all. Did they pick up this medvedev story because of some CIA ploy for one-sided reporting? Or would nobody have bothered to read if they went with the ''prime ministers joking about'' approach?

Search for ''Ebola airborne'' and you'll find that most of the media are simply sensationalist hacks who don't have much of a clue about their subject matter. That's as much of a conclusion as this data allows one to draw, whilst remaining sensible.

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 03:44
...most of the media are simply sensationalist hacks who don't have much of a clue about their subject matter. ...


Once in a while, you make a credible statement, must be "accidental posting".

The problem is the "media-government-military" complex.

1. Media says (falsely): "Evil Putin is threatening us Innocents with Nuclear War!" And the people read, listen and watch the media.

(How many comments in Yahoo! "news" call for war with Russia, after such an inflammatory article? 1000's. There are a huge and increasing number of zombified morons in the US, 49 million getting government food, 100 million depending on government handouts, millions more on psychotropic drugs like prozac, clonopin and ritalin, and now marijuana is being legalized, soon cocaine. The ability of the average citizen to think rationally is declining.)

2. Government says: "The people have spoken to us. They voted for us. We must do as they demand. We must pass laws suppressing Russia's economy and practice war games next to their border, and all the NATO countries must increase their war budgets to buy more weapons."

3. Military says: "Hey look, media, the evil Ivan is massing troops on his border. You must print another story about these dangerous Russians."

This takes us back to "1" and the cycle starts again. The military swallows more money and everyone else gets rich and more powerful, too - media-government-military.

Armoured
21-10-2014, 10:19
This takes us back to "1" and the cycle starts again. The military swallows more money and everyone else gets rich and more powerful, too - media-government-military.

Couldn't / shouldn't this be applied to current Russian media environment too? Oh, except for most are controlled by the state.

The old line that I remember about Soviet propaganda was "the leaders tell them what lies to print, read it in the paper in the morning, and believe it as fact." (I don't believe it was original to Soviet context though).

Given that the head of state television (Kiselev) has bragged about Russia being the only country capable of reducing the US to 'nuclear ash', and much made of the 88% approval rating, it would seem to apply here.

As for lies, look, for example, at Astakhov's statements about a Russian kid being adopted by a 'gay couple' - the whole series of his public statements was just riddled with lies.

JanC
21-10-2014, 10:27
The problem is the "media-government-military" complex.

...which you keep referencing but have never credibly established as actually existing.

Profit driven cheap sensationalism is a more simple and likely explanation in this case. Fear sells.

Have you ever done the same exercise for Russian media? How many still have articles about long discredited theories about Ukraine and MH17?

Armoured
21-10-2014, 11:34
If I am wrong, so is the Western media, who spread this around without checking the facts. Russia has 1640 USABLE (deployed) nukes, however the repeated headlines say "5000," which is not the deployed total and not the deployed + reserve total. Just more proof the Western media places more importance on its "Russia = Putin, and both are bad" agenda, above reporting factually.

I don't understand the offense taken at this. Almost all sources say Russia (and US) have ~1600-2000 active nuclear warheads, and ~7300-8000 total.

From the context of this article, I don't see why this distinction is important, especially since (as noted) 1000 or whatever is certainly enough.

Granted, accuracy would be better, but using this number doesn't change any of his other arguments (whether those are right or not is a separate point).

This is just completely fake outrage at 'the media' - which, as noted, has hardly jumped on the bandwagon to pick up this article.

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 13:09
I don't understand the offense taken at this. Almost all sources say Russia (and US) have ~1600-2000 active nuclear warheads, and ~7300-8000 total.

From the context of this article, I don't see why this distinction is important, especially since (as noted) 1000 or whatever is certainly enough.

Because the article writer is telling lies - it proves the writer is agenda-driven, not fact-driven. The writer is claiming that Putin is threatening to start World War 3, and that Russia has 5000 warheads ready to go. Both are these claims are false.


Granted, accuracy would be better...

:doh: Yeah, it would be nice if the media was "accurate". :rofl:


'the media' - has hardly jumped on the bandwagon to pick up this article. :rofl:

Google "Russia threatens" or "Russia World War 3" and you'll have enough material to read for the next 3 months...

What is your point? That the Western media is not biased? That's absurd and you know it.

And still waiting for you to back up your claim about "traditionally reliable media sources."


...which you keep referencing but have never credibly established as actually existing.

What do you demand, that they carry ID cards that say "I am a member of the Media-Government-Military complex." :) "Media-Government-Military complex" works better at explaining corruption in the systems, better than anything else offered.


Profit driven cheap sensationalism is a more simple and likely explanation in this case. Fear sells.

Fear sells, and hate sells, and fear and hate are instilled in the public by the media. The government reacts to media and public pressure and feeds the military, this alleviates the fear and anger of the zombified voters.


Have you ever done the same exercise for Russian media? How many still have articles about long discredited theories about Ukraine and MH17?

Why should I? What's your point? You are claiming Russian media is corrupt, so therefore, that justifies Western media corruption?

"Discredited" "theories"? Discredited by who? Western media?

Armoured
21-10-2014, 14:11
Because the article writer is telling lies - it proves the writer is agenda-driven, not fact-driven. The writer is claiming that Putin is threatening to start World War 3, and that Russia has 5000 warheads ready to go. Both are these claims are false.

I do not see anywhere in the (original, SMH) article where the writer claims Putin 'is threatening to start World War 3.' He writes specifically "Three times in the past two months, he has raised the spectre of nuclear war as he confronts the West." As far as I can tell, this is accurate - and your paraphrase is not what I'd call accurate.

He writes Putin "has put his country's 5000 nuclear warheads at the forefront." So you're wrong - he does not claim '5000 warheads ready to go.'

Since he just uses the vague term 'forefront', I think one could conclude he should use either active or total, but not some number 'in between.'

In the end, however, his error is not substantive (it doesn't change anything), whereas both of your errors above are quite different than the original text.


:doh: Yeah, it would be nice if the media was "accurate". :rofl:

Yes, they get held to higher standards.


What is your point? That the Western media is not biased? That's absurd and you know it.

As stated above, that what you have brought as evidence doesn't seem to fit your claims.


And still waiting for you to back up your claim about "traditionally reliable media sources."

I'll go with 'more reliable than you in being factually accurate.' That is setting the bar rather low, but why quibble?

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 14:22
Waste of time to reply. The topic is about hypocrisy - a double standard - a Western leader making a joke - and getting appreciative laughs - and a Russian leader making a similar joke - and getting reactions from the Western media of shock and horror.

JanC
21-10-2014, 14:25
What do you demand, that they carry ID cards that say "I am a member of the Media-Government-Military complex." :) "Media-Government-Military complex" works better at explaining corruption in the systems, better than anything else offered.

I disagree and I submit that you've not actually done any research into this that takes everything into account and could provide a statistical analysis of various types of news, sources etc. along with every reasonable motive.

You are going on your own perception of things here, which is pretty far from conclusive to say the least. Without any actual evidence, at the very least you would have to admit to the very real possibility that you could simply be wrong.


Why should I? What's your point?

Because supposedly they would not be part of this hypothetical Western media military complex you keep referencing.


You are claiming Russian media is corrupt

Am I? Where?


"Discredited" "theories"? Discredited by who? Western media?

Discredited by facts. You know, the things you can look up when you're not sure whether you should trust a particular journo.

I find it peculiar that you keep banging on about Western media but at the same time will post ''news'' or ''investigations'' from sites who are far less reliable or credible than the worst of the lamestream media. Clearly your distrust does not work equally in all directions.

Bashing the Western media is also a convenient way to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your view. It's arbitrary and not falsifiable - its a belief system. You can assign anything you don't want to be true the ''BS propaganda'' tag without any specific evidence or investigation and move on. When occasionally something does fit your view, you can claim a ''one day wonder''. It's circular.

Uncle Wally
21-10-2014, 14:30
I find it peculiar that you keep banging on about Western media but at the same time will post ''news'' or ''investigations'' from sites who are far less reliable or credible than the worst of the lamestream media.


And how would you know this? Can you proves this?

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 14:32
You are going on your own perception of things here...

Waste of time to reply. The topic is about hypocrisy - a double standard - a Western leader making a joke - and getting appreciative laughs - and a Russian leader making a similar joke - and getting reactions from the Western media of shock and horror.

JanC
21-10-2014, 14:39
And how would you know this? Can you proves this?

It's been proven on this very forum on several occasions. The most recent one IIRC was the 16 trillion claim about the fed - it was utterly demolished by easily verifyable facts. As far as the reputation of many of these sites goes, I think that one is obvious.

Of course a minimal capacity for logical understanding needs to exist for the point to stick - some people will hang on to the Noah's Ark story no matter how many arguments that it would be impossible.


Waste of time to reply. The topic is about hypocrisy - a double standard - a Western leader making a joke - and getting appreciative laughs - and a Russian leader making a similar joke - and getting reactions from the Western media of shock and horror.

Has it gone completely over your head that there are several possible other non-political biases which would have had the same result?

That is where your argument is lacking - it doesn't mention any alternatives you just go straight for the bias that suits your view. The fact that a plausible and logical connection exists between your claim and ''observed'' result does not make it true by default.

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 15:09
It's been proven on this very forum on several occasions. The most recent one IIRC was the 16 trillion claim about the fed - it was utterly demolished by easily verifyable facts. As far as the reputation of many of these sites goes, I think that one is obvious.

IIRC? $16 trillion? Whatever. Everything is obvious to you, but then you're biased.


Of course a minimal capacity for logical understanding needs to exist for the point to stick - some people will hang on to the Noah's Ark story no matter how many arguments that it would be impossible.

That's extremely offensive, and reveals your extreme anti-Christian bigotry.

(I'm trying to make a point here, it's an example of the topic of this thread, but you won't understand it, nor your own self-irony in making such a remark).


Has it gone completely over your head that there are several possible other non-political biases which would have had the same result?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?


That is where your argument is lacking - it doesn't mention any alternatives you just go straight for the bias that suits your view. The fact that a plausible and logical connection exists between your claim and ''observed'' result does not make it true by default.

Look in a mirror. You're the one driveling out accusations and ignoring your own bias.

Remington
21-10-2014, 15:19
Waste of time to reply. The topic is about hypocrisy - a double standard - a Western leader making a joke - and getting appreciative laughs - and a Russian leader making a similar joke - and getting reactions from the Western media of shock and horror.

Who was the first to use saber-ratting with nuclear threats? Was it Putin then it's not a laughing matter. The West can make jokes because they're not the ones making the threat... it was Putin who mentioned it first so Medvedev made a poor choice joking about it.

I could careless what the media says this or that... who lies... it's not the point. Putin made the threat in the first place with nuclear weapons and nobody is laughing except Putin himself. That makes him a very dangerous or lunatic.

Armoured
21-10-2014, 15:34
... so Medvedev made a poor choice joking about it.

In this case, and I haven't seen many other articles or comments about Medvedev's joke, I don't hold this against him. It seems like it was a bit awkward and not a great joke, but Key was just as involved and it was in private. The context was joking and he joked back.

I have to admit though that I get less exercised about jokes than others. I still don't think Reagan's "I have declared the USSR illegal - bombing begins in five minutes" was so very, very bad - not that it was a great joke, but it was still clearly a joke. (I thought it was better than most of Reagan's humour.)

I worry more about those who arent' joking....

Remington
21-10-2014, 15:46
I worry more about those who arent' joking....

I'm not too worried about Medvedev's jokes but its not appropriate time especially Putin made a threat recently. At least Putin is more hardliner than Medvedev but that's expected from former KGB Colonel. I have more confidence in Medvedev than Putin.

AstarD
21-10-2014, 15:59
I have more confidence in Medvedev than Putin.Why exactly is that? He hasn't displayed any inclination so far to gainsay his puppetmaster.

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 16:03
Who was the first to use saber-ratting with nuclear threats? Was it Putin then it's not a laughing matter. The West can make jokes because they're not the ones making the threat...

What *exactly* was the "threat" Putin made? Word-for-word?

Did he say "I'm Threatening You with my 5000 Nuclear Warheads" ? No, he did not say that. The media LIED when their headlines implied he said that and that he was going to start World War 3. What Putin said was DIFFERENT than what the media reported he said.


That makes him a very dangerous or lunatic.

No, the lunatics are the media who repeat these lies and the people who believe them.

Remington
21-10-2014, 16:16
Why exactly is that? He hasn't displayed any inclination so far to gainsay his puppetmaster.

When Medvedev was president and he initiated some pro-western reforms until his term was finished and Putin was back as president and he rolled back much of what Medvedev did. Putin is spymaster and Medvedev is businessman who wants closer tie with the West. They're both very different IMHO. I've noticed more of it is Putin's policies and Medvedev doesn't have much say like he used to. Putin has his own clans mostly military and FSB, and Medvedev's clans are mostly businessmen and oligarchs. I have a feeling if Putin consolidates more power and Medvedev will be first to go but Putin needs Medvedev's supporters for now. This is what I have observed.

Remington
21-10-2014, 16:18
What *exactly* was the "threat" Putin made? Word-for-word?

Did he say "I'm Threatening You with my 5000 Nuclear Warheads" ? No, he did not say that. The media LIED when their headlines implied he said that and that he was going to start World War 3. What Putin said was DIFFERENT than what the media reported he said.



No, the lunatics are the media who repeat these lies and the people who believe them.

I'm not going to waste my time with you since you're the one who is being a lunatic. Carry on believing the lies from less credible sources.

Uncle Wally
21-10-2014, 16:32
It's been proven on this very forum on several occasions. The most recent one IIRC was the 16 trillion claim about the fed - it was utterly demolished by easily verifyable facts. As far as the reputation of many of these sites goes, I think that one is obvious.

"utterly demolished"? Those "facts" are the fact that the FED acts alone and is not control by the government. The cheating was written into the law. The one pasted late at night on Dec 23 1913 when most of the people who would vote were home for Christmas. The fact is the FED works for banks not for the American people.


The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else

Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.

The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.

For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending programs.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/the-fed-audit
You can't say anything about this guy because he was elected by the people of Vermont

http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/

The medias inscrutable brush-off of the Government Accounting Offices recently released audit of the Federal Reserve has raised many questions about the Feds goings-on since the financial crisis began in 2008.

The audit of the Feds emergency lending programs was scarcely reported by mainstream media albeit the results are undoubtedly newsworthy. It is the first audit of the Fed in United States history since its beginnings in 1913. The findings verify that over $16 trillion was allocated to corporations and banks internationally, purportedly for financial assistance during and after the 2008 fiscal crisis.

Uncle Wally
21-10-2014, 16:41
This is what started it all.

Australian prime minister threatens to shirtfront Vladimir Putin

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/10/15/abbo-o15.html

Close to three months after the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine on July 17, Prime Minister Tony Abbott told reporters on Tuesday that he was going to shirtfront Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane next month. I am going to be saying to Mr Putin, Australians were murdered, Abbott asserted. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment.

A shirtfront is when an Australian Rules Football player charges at high speed and crashes his shoulder directly into the open chest of an opponent, with the intention of violently knocking him to the ground. More often than not, it results in injuries.


Here's another news story that didn't get far.

A Thursday article in the New Straits Times, Malaysias flagship English-language newspaper, charged the US- and European-backed Ukrainian regime in Kiev with shooting down Malaysian Airlines flight MH 17 in east Ukraine last month. Given the tightly controlled character of the Malaysian media, it appears that the accusation that Kiev shot down MH17 has the imprimatur of the Malaysian state.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/09/mala-a09.html

I first read these in you belove westen press but now it seems they are harder to find.

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 17:19
I'm not going to waste my time with you since you're the one who is being a lunatic. Carry on believing the lies from less credible sources.

Yeah, looks like the only thing you can do is make false accusations. You're the one drinking the media Kool-aid. Putin issued no threat. The only threats are coming from Western media and NATO, with its war games in Ukraine and the Black Sea, and its exhortations to all the countries bordering Russia to increase the weapons spending.

JanC
21-10-2014, 17:32
Everything is obvious to you, but then you're biased.

Towards verifyable reality, yes. Guilty.


That's extremely offensive, and reveals your extreme anti-Christian bigotry.

Please. Most Christians including the Vatican don't believe it literally. It's an absolutely perfect example of people who are otherwise functional refusing to use their reason. Ignorance deserves no respect, it doesn't help anyone. It's not anti-Christian, it's anti-ignorant. I doubt you would go out of your way to avoid ''offending'' the flat earth society, this is the same thing.



I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?

Absolutely. Was it that difficult?

You have not supported your claim for a specific bias in any way, shape or form. You have provided nothing that invalidates other biases (such as financial) on behalf of ''the media''.

Ever noticed how if a tsunami occurs or a plane disappears it gets repeated ad nauseam on the news channels while the ad sales people speed dial their clients? When that happens, whatever is going on politically could not be less important to them. They will use whatever gets people's attention. These are for-profit organisations. The medvedev ''joke'' was absolutely useful to them for the same reason. Reporting on ministers making jokes does not have nearly the same effect.

So unless you have some good reasons why this was clearly not another case of profit-driven sensationalism, it's at least an equal theory to your global anti-Russian media conspiracy.

Uncle Wally
21-10-2014, 17:52
Ignorance deserves no respect,

So unless you have some good reasons why this was clearly not another case of profit-driven sensationalism, it's at least an equal theory to your global anti-Russian media conspiracy.

"Ignorance deserves no respect" All living things deserve respect. Even assholes with no respect.

The global anti Russian media conspiracy started well before Crimea was repatriated. It started before the illegal coup in Ukraine, before Sochi and in September 2013,


In September 2013, one of Ukraines richest oligarchs, Viktor Pinchuk, paid for an elite strategic conference on Ukraines future that was held in the same Palace in Yalta, Crimea, where Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill met to decide the future of Europe in 1945. The Economist, one of the elite media reporting on what it called a display of fierce diplomacy, stated that: The future of Ukraine, a country of 48m people, and of Europe was being decided in real time. The participants included Bill and Hillary Clinton, former CIA head General David Petraeus, former U.S. Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, former World Bank head Robert Zoellick, Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, Shimon Peres, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schrder, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Mario Monti, Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite, and Polands influential foreign minister Radek Sikorski. Both President Viktor Yanukovych, deposed five months later, and his recently elected successor Petro Poroshenko were present. Former U.S. energy secretary Bill Richardson was there to talk about the shale-gas revolution which the United States hopes to use to weaken Russia by substituting fracking for Russias natural gas reserves. The center of discussion was the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) between Ukraine and the European Union, and the prospect of Ukraines integration with the West. The general tone was euphoria over the prospect of breaking Ukraines ties with Russia in favor of the West.

Conspiracy against Russia? Not at all. Unlike Bilderberg, the proceedings were not secret. Facing a dozen or so American VIPs and a large sampling of the European political elite was a Putin adviser named Sergei Glazyev, who made Russias position perfectly clear.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/06/washingtons-iron-curtain-in-ukraine/

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 18:04
Please. Most Christians including the Vatican don't believe it literally. It's an absolutely perfect example of people who are otherwise functional refusing to use their reason. Ignorance deserves no respect

You don't get it.

My point is that anti-Christian bigotry and ignorance is just fine with the media. in other words, according to the media and their readers, it is *not* bigoted and biased to make a joke about Noah's Ark. BUT, make a joke about Muslims, or Jews, now that's a hate crime. Let's see you make a derogatory remark or joke about Muslims, like you did about Christians and Noah's Ark.

And making a joke about nuclear weapons is HORRIBLE and HATEFUL if a Russian leader makes it, but hypocritically, just a little joke when a Western leader makes the similar joke.

And when Shamil makes a joke about Serena Williams being a man, that is "extremely sexist and extremely racist and extremely offensive" and Shamil is attacked and demonized and fined and suspended.

But American politicians calling Putin "Hitler", well, that's just a joke.

The rest of your post is your usual obfuscatory, off-the-topic, irrelevant, debate club nonsense.

Remington
21-10-2014, 18:06
Yeah, looks like the only thing you can do is make false accusations. You're the one drinking the media Kool-aid. Putin issued no threat. The only threats are coming from Western media and NATO, with its war games in Ukraine and the Black Sea, and its exhortations to all the countries bordering Russia to increase the weapons spending.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/word/bla-bla-emoticon.gif

Uncle Wally
21-10-2014, 18:29
Mr. Remington are you tring to say that none of these things happened or that it is ok for America and Europe to be agressive but not Russia?

Armoured
21-10-2014, 18:30
"Ignorance deserves no respect" All living things deserve respect. Even assholes with no respect.

No, ignorance, idiocy, stupidity, etc., do NOT deserve respect. They are not living things.

Ignoramuses (ignorami?), idiots, and the stupid are living things and deserve respect. But not in respect of their idiocy (etc), in respect of their humanity.

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 18:49
...

Have headache? Need to consult doctor. Maybe it's the microchip in your head, it's beeping...your spaceship is ready to blast off for the Romulan Star Empire.

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 18:52
Moderator, please delete me (this message, not me).

Fantastika
21-10-2014, 18:54
No, ignorance, idiocy, stupidity, etc., do NOT deserve respect. They are not living things.

Ignoramuses (ignorami?), idiots, and the stupid are living things and deserve respect. But not in respect of their idiocy (etc), in respect of their humanity.

You should take a break. Go outside, breathe some fresh air, look at all the interesting things and people... :trampoline:

Armoured
21-10-2014, 22:23
Here's another news story that didn't get far.

Because it was thoroughly debunked - in part because it originated with a [quasi]neo-nazi rag.


A Thursday article in the New Straits Times, Malaysias flagship English-language newspaper

Ummm, no. Not the flagship - circulation ~1/3 of the main paper, and it's a yellow tabloid. The article seems to have been only on the website.


charged the US- and European-backed Ukrainian regime in Kiev with shooting down Malaysian Airlines flight MH 17 in east Ukraine last month.

Citing, for example, the OSCE _press guy_ (google: he's a journalist) as an expert on damage on aircraft from machine guns.


Given the tightly controlled character of the Malaysian media, it appears that the accusation that Kiev shot down MH17 has the imprimatur of the Malaysian state.

regardless of whether this characterization of the Malaysian media is true, it was subsequently contradicted in the NST by the Malaysian government.


I first read these in you belove westen press but now it seems they are harder to find.

Because thoroughly discredited. Like your Fed nonsense above: contradicted by actual facts.

Uncle Wally
21-10-2014, 22:58
Because it was thoroughly debunked - in part because it originated with a [quasi]neo-nazi rag.

Because thoroughly discredited. Like your Fed nonsense above: contradicted by actual facts.

Oh and neo-nazi are only good enough for you when they work in the Ukraine government?


Fed nonsence? What like they can bail anyone out and don't have to say a word to the government? Bail out banks because the president of that bank is on the FED board? Send money to other countries, it's they choice? They are in banking not politics.

Armoured
21-10-2014, 23:55
Oh and neo-nazi are only good enough for you when they work in the Ukraine government?

Check the history. We're talking actual holocaust deniers. And any rate, the quesiton I was noting was the original source of the materials. (It's been a while, if I have anything confused, my mistake).


Fed nonsence? What like they can bail anyone out and don't have to say a word to the government? Bail out banks because the president of that bank is on the FED board? Send money to other countries, it's they choice? They are in banking not politics.

Please quote directly from the GAO audit to support your points. It addresses all of these points according to the terms of the audit imposed by congress, and has actual content. Otherwise not worth talking to you about this.

Fantastika
22-10-2014, 16:44
Because it was thoroughly debunked - in part because it originated with a [quasi]neo-nazi rag.

Socialists = Nazi's? :confused:


Because thoroughly discredited. Like your Fed nonsense above: contradicted by actual facts.

FED printing $1 trillion dollars a year. Nothing wrong with that. Just nonsense. :rolleyes:

Hey, why doesn't the FED print $30 trillion? Then every American could be a millionaire! :hooray:

AstarD
22-10-2014, 17:16
Socialists = Nazi's? :confused: It's in the name that NAZI is an acronym for.

FatAndy
22-10-2014, 17:26
:emote_popcorn:

JanC
22-10-2014, 17:42
FED printing $1 trillion dollars a year. Nothing wrong with that.

Moving the goalposts by 15 trillion are we? The debunked claim wasn't about a trillion.



Whether there is something wrong with ''printing'' a trillion, time will tell.
Fact is that inflation is still low.

Fantastika
23-10-2014, 08:27
Whether there is something wrong with ''printing'' a trillion, time will tell.
Fact is that inflation is still low.

Yeah, inflation is okay today. Any significant increase will bankrupt the US. Just keep rolling over the debt into short-term notes, and pray the inflation rate never exceeds 1%.

Problem with "Progressives" is they don't know right from wrong.

How do you know "right" from "wrong." Oh, wait, I already asked you that a couple of times, you don't know.

Heck, I can just run up $80,000 in credit card debts, and then declare bankruptcy. I don't worry, all my debts are forgiven, the US taxpayer bails me out. Like what happened with Hillary Clinton's $300,000,000 Whitewater bank.

What happens if EVERYBODY runs up $80,000 in credit card debts? Or what happens when EVERY country starts printing money? Oh, that is just "Quantitative Easing" or what's a nice name, the "Dreaming of Flowers and Rainbows Free Money Printing Program"? :)

Remington
23-10-2014, 09:08
YHeck, I can just run up $80,000 in credit card debts, and then declare bankruptcy. I don't worry, all my debts are forgiven, the US taxpayer bails me out. Like what happened with Hillary Clinton's $300,000,000 Whitewater bank.

That used to be the case before but not anymore. It's gotten harder to declare bankruptcy nowadays. In some cases, judges will change Chapter 7 (straight bankruptcy) to Chapter 13 (debt reorganization) if you have a job or income and able able to repay under better terms from the creditors.

Only the debts cannot be discharged under the following circumstances:
(1) money owed for child support or alimony, fines, and some taxes;(2) debts not listed on your bankruptcy petition;(3) loans you got by knowingly giving false information to a creditor, who reasonably relied on it in making you the loan;(4) debts resulting from “willful and malicious” harm;(5) student loans owed to a school or government body, except if:– the court decides that payment would be an undue hardship;(6) mortgages and other liens which are not paid in the bankruptcy case (but bankruptcy will wipe out your obligation to pay any additional money if the property is sold by the creditor). -- http://www.virginia-bankruptcy.com/faq.html#11

So, if you decided to run up to $80,000 in credit card debt, file bankruptcy and good luck with that because that constitutes as a fraud. Your debt will not be forgiven. My parents filed for bankruptcy before and I know all of this. Plus, you will have bad credit for 7 years and you'll get unfavorable credit terms from any creditors such as high interest rate or high probability of being denied. It's no fun.

Fantastika
23-10-2014, 09:33
So, if you decided to run up to $80,000 in credit card debt, file bankruptcy and good luck with that because that constitutes as a fraud. Your debt will not be forgiven.

So it's a bankruptcy, whether or not it's a fraud. Someone pays for it. The credit card companies eat the debt, and charge everyone else higher interest rate.

If the individual goes bankrupt, the bankruptcy court bails them out.
If the city goes bankrupt the state bails them out.
If the state goes bankrupt the federal government bails them out ("Obama Stimulus Bill").
If the US government goes bankrupt, who bails them out?

Remington
23-10-2014, 09:46
If the US government goes bankrupt, who bails them out?

IMF... if IMF goes bankrupt then we're in world of hurt.

Fantastika
23-10-2014, 10:21
IMF... if IMF goes bankrupt then we're in world of hurt.

US funds IMF...Dog chasing its tail? :)

Uncle Wally
23-10-2014, 12:17
So it's a bankruptcy, whether or not it's a fraud. Someone pays for it. The credit card companies eat the debt, and charge everyone else higher interest rate.

If the individual goes bankrupt, the bankruptcy court bails them out.
If the city goes bankrupt the state bails them out.
If the state goes bankrupt the federal government bails them out ("Obama Stimulus Bill").
If the US government goes bankrupt, who bails them out?

The individual bails them out. The US is bankrupt but you see there is new suckers born everyday and that's why the government can just pass that on to your grand kids. You see it never has to end! Once the US and their bankers take over the whole world everything will be fine!

Uncle Wally
23-10-2014, 12:19
IMF... if IMF goes bankrupt then we're in world of hurt.


Getting rid of IMF would the best thing to ever happen.