Georgia has won the PR war
-
OK, let's just compare points 1 and 4. In 1 you are very concerned whether NATO intervation had any practical meaning. But I see NO concern about how it was made; nothing is said about innocent victims among Serbian civilians, cluster bombs, etc. But as soon as you turn to Georgia, all this CHEAP rhetoric is coming out! Why?
Regards, Nikolay
When I said that all we did was give the Kosovars a chance to get even, did you twist that around to mean approbation - or is it just your language problem? Since apparently you don't have any ability to extrapolate, I felt great sympathy for the Serbian civilians that were hit by the bombs. I know what its like and don't wish it on anyone. Since I lived with a girl whose grandparents had come from Serbia, it was more personal to me than it probably was to you. But, Nicolai, since you are so good at dredging up the past, I wonder if you'd like to talk about Chechnya. It appears to me that Putin is trying to pull a repeat. Would you agree? How do you feel about the Chechnyans who were killed, tortured, bombed and made homeless by the thousands? Proud of your country's behavior?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
I am amazed at the number of supposedly adult people in this forum who have felt that what Georgia did justifies what Russia did.
useful idiots - far from a new concept, merely a new generation.[^]
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
far from a new concept, merely a new generation.[^]
"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam." ~ Bruce C. Thornton You think he's met Ka?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
When I said that all we did was give the Kosovars a chance to get even, did you twist that around to mean approbation - or is it just your language problem? Since apparently you don't have any ability to extrapolate, I felt great sympathy for the Serbian civilians that were hit by the bombs. I know what its like and don't wish it on anyone. Since I lived with a girl whose grandparents had come from Serbia, it was more personal to me than it probably was to you. But, Nicolai, since you are so good at dredging up the past, I wonder if you'd like to talk about Chechnya. It appears to me that Putin is trying to pull a repeat. Would you agree? How do you feel about the Chechnyans who were killed, tortured, bombed and made homeless by the thousands? Proud of your country's behavior?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
When I said that all we did was give the Kosovars a chance to get even, did you twist that around to mean approbation - or is it just your language problem?
Kosovars should be compared with South Ossetians. And just like Kosovars they simply try to get even with Georgians now. But have I ever said I approve it???
Oakman wrote:
I felt great sympathy for the Serbian civilians that were hit by the bombs.
Hey, don't you intentionally pretend not to understand what I am talking about? I did not ask whether you feel any sympathy for Serbs hit by NATO bombs. I did ask why the hell you do NOT blame Americans for that bombs? Why don't you say something like: "Oh, damn bloody Americans! They rolled in with overwhelming force! They killed innocent civilians there! They bombed refugees! Mr Bush is a thug! He must pay for this!" Where all this emotional loud words that you so like to use when it regards Russia?
Oakman wrote:
But, Nicolai, since you are so good at dredging up the past, I wonder if you'd like to talk about Chechnya. It appears to me that Putin is trying to pull a repeat. Would you agree? How do you feel about the Chechnyans who were killed, tortured, bombed and made homeless by the thousands? Proud of your country's behavior?
Not a problem, my fellow! I DO blame the Russian government for the war in Chechnya. I DO blame Mr Yeltsin, who was so loved by the West, for the First and most bloody Chechnya war. I DO blame Mr Putin for the Second Chechnya war. And I am NOT proud of Russia's behavior in Chechnya by any means. Still any questions?
Regards, Nikolay
-
Oakman wrote:
When I said that all we did was give the Kosovars a chance to get even, did you twist that around to mean approbation - or is it just your language problem?
Kosovars should be compared with South Ossetians. And just like Kosovars they simply try to get even with Georgians now. But have I ever said I approve it???
Oakman wrote:
I felt great sympathy for the Serbian civilians that were hit by the bombs.
Hey, don't you intentionally pretend not to understand what I am talking about? I did not ask whether you feel any sympathy for Serbs hit by NATO bombs. I did ask why the hell you do NOT blame Americans for that bombs? Why don't you say something like: "Oh, damn bloody Americans! They rolled in with overwhelming force! They killed innocent civilians there! They bombed refugees! Mr Bush is a thug! He must pay for this!" Where all this emotional loud words that you so like to use when it regards Russia?
Oakman wrote:
But, Nicolai, since you are so good at dredging up the past, I wonder if you'd like to talk about Chechnya. It appears to me that Putin is trying to pull a repeat. Would you agree? How do you feel about the Chechnyans who were killed, tortured, bombed and made homeless by the thousands? Proud of your country's behavior?
Not a problem, my fellow! I DO blame the Russian government for the war in Chechnya. I DO blame Mr Yeltsin, who was so loved by the West, for the First and most bloody Chechnya war. I DO blame Mr Putin for the Second Chechnya war. And I am NOT proud of Russia's behavior in Chechnya by any means. Still any questions?
Regards, Nikolay
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
Why don't you say something like: "Oh, damn bloody Americans! They rolled in with overwhelming force! They killed innocent civilians there! They bombed refugees! Mr Bush is a thug! He must pay for this!"
Well: the main reason I don't, is they never targeted civilians. That there were some killed, I have no doubt. Just as I have no doubt that the Serbs killed thousands and thousands of Kosovars. Oh by the way: At the time Clinton was president. George Bush was govenor of Texas. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
Why don't you say something like: "Oh, damn bloody Americans! They rolled in with overwhelming force! They killed innocent civilians there! They bombed refugees! Mr Bush is a thug! He must pay for this!"
Well: the main reason I don't, is they never targeted civilians. That there were some killed, I have no doubt. Just as I have no doubt that the Serbs killed thousands and thousands of Kosovars. Oh by the way: At the time Clinton was president. George Bush was govenor of Texas. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Well: the main reason I don't, is they never targeted civilians. That there were some killed, I have no doubt.
Do you really believe that the Russian troops were ordered to kill civilians in Georgia??? Give me a break!
Oakman wrote:
Just as I have no doubt that the Serbs killed thousands and thousands of Kosovars.
Like there is no doubt that hundreds and hundreds of South Ossetian civilians were killed in Tskhinvali along with a dozen of Russian peacekeepers. So what?
Oakman wrote:
Oh by the way: At the time Clinton was president. George Bush was govenor of Texas.
You are right. They both are thugs anyway. :)
Regards, Nikolay
-
Oakman wrote:
Well: the main reason I don't, is they never targeted civilians. That there were some killed, I have no doubt.
Do you really believe that the Russian troops were ordered to kill civilians in Georgia??? Give me a break!
Oakman wrote:
Just as I have no doubt that the Serbs killed thousands and thousands of Kosovars.
Like there is no doubt that hundreds and hundreds of South Ossetian civilians were killed in Tskhinvali along with a dozen of Russian peacekeepers. So what?
Oakman wrote:
Oh by the way: At the time Clinton was president. George Bush was govenor of Texas.
You are right. They both are thugs anyway. :)
Regards, Nikolay
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
Do you really believe that the Russian troops were ordered to kill civilians in Georgia??? Give me a break!
Yes. There have been verified reports of tanks firing on civilian refugees.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
Like there is no doubt that hundreds and hundreds of South Ossetian civilians were killed in Tskhinvali
Sorry, Human Rights Watch looked into those insanely inflated casualty figures and found them to be false. IIRC, 45 South Ossetians were killed.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
a dozen of Russian peacekeepers.
I must admit that the use of the name "peacekeepers" is brilliantly Orwellian.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
They both are thugs anyway
I am sure that the Russians know far more about having crime bosses as heads of state. I bow to your superior knowledge.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
Do you really believe that the Russian troops were ordered to kill civilians in Georgia??? Give me a break!
Yes. There have been verified reports of tanks firing on civilian refugees.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
Like there is no doubt that hundreds and hundreds of South Ossetian civilians were killed in Tskhinvali
Sorry, Human Rights Watch looked into those insanely inflated casualty figures and found them to be false. IIRC, 45 South Ossetians were killed.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
a dozen of Russian peacekeepers.
I must admit that the use of the name "peacekeepers" is brilliantly Orwellian.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
They both are thugs anyway
I am sure that the Russians know far more about having crime bosses as heads of state. I bow to your superior knowledge.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Yes. There have been verified reports of tanks firing on civilian refugees.
Was it casual? Or were this tanks really ORDERED to fire refugees? Any links to documented reports? By the way, as far as I see you like to refer to HRW. Well, that's something. Let's just see what we can learn about Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Compaign[^] from that source: ...Human Rights Watch concludes that as few as 489 and as many as 528 Yugoslav civilians were killed in the ninety separate incidents in Operation Allied Force... ...Almost half of the incidents (forty-three) resulted from attacks during daylight hours, when civilians could have been expected to be on the roads and bridges or in public buildings which may have been targeted... ...In three cases-the bombing of Serb Radio and Television headquarters in Belgrade (incident no. 30), the bombing of the "Marshal Tito" Petrovaradin (Varadinski) Bridge in Novi Sad (incident no. 2), and the bombing of the Belgrade Heating Plant (incident no. 7)-Human Rights Watch questions the legitimacy of the target... ...The attacks on the Novi Sad bridge and six other bridges in which civilian deaths occurred (Ostruznica, incident no. 37; Trstenik, incident no. 39; Nis, incident no. 51; Vladicin Han, incident no. 55; Pertate, incident no. 71; and Varvarin, incident no. 81) also were of questionable military effect. All are road bridges. Most are urban or town bridges that are not major routes of communications. Human Rights Watch questions individual target selection in the case of these bridges... ...On April 14, during daylight hours, NATO aircraft repeatedly bombed refugee movements over a twelve-mile stretch of road between Djakovica and Decane in western Kosovo, killing seventy-three civilians and injuring thirty-six-deaths Human Rights Watch could document. The attack began at 1:30 p.m. and persisted for about two hours, causing civilian deaths in numerous locations on the convoy route near the villages of Bistrazin, Gradis, Madanaj, and Meja... ...Cluster bomb use can be positively determined in seven incidents (another five are possible but unconfirmed)... ...Altogether, some ninety to 150 civilians died from cluster bomb use... Any comments on this? Should I continue quoting from the report?
-
Oakman wrote:
Yes. There have been verified reports of tanks firing on civilian refugees.
Was it casual? Or were this tanks really ORDERED to fire refugees? Any links to documented reports? By the way, as far as I see you like to refer to HRW. Well, that's something. Let's just see what we can learn about Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Compaign[^] from that source: ...Human Rights Watch concludes that as few as 489 and as many as 528 Yugoslav civilians were killed in the ninety separate incidents in Operation Allied Force... ...Almost half of the incidents (forty-three) resulted from attacks during daylight hours, when civilians could have been expected to be on the roads and bridges or in public buildings which may have been targeted... ...In three cases-the bombing of Serb Radio and Television headquarters in Belgrade (incident no. 30), the bombing of the "Marshal Tito" Petrovaradin (Varadinski) Bridge in Novi Sad (incident no. 2), and the bombing of the Belgrade Heating Plant (incident no. 7)-Human Rights Watch questions the legitimacy of the target... ...The attacks on the Novi Sad bridge and six other bridges in which civilian deaths occurred (Ostruznica, incident no. 37; Trstenik, incident no. 39; Nis, incident no. 51; Vladicin Han, incident no. 55; Pertate, incident no. 71; and Varvarin, incident no. 81) also were of questionable military effect. All are road bridges. Most are urban or town bridges that are not major routes of communications. Human Rights Watch questions individual target selection in the case of these bridges... ...On April 14, during daylight hours, NATO aircraft repeatedly bombed refugee movements over a twelve-mile stretch of road between Djakovica and Decane in western Kosovo, killing seventy-three civilians and injuring thirty-six-deaths Human Rights Watch could document. The attack began at 1:30 p.m. and persisted for about two hours, causing civilian deaths in numerous locations on the convoy route near the villages of Bistrazin, Gradis, Madanaj, and Meja... ...Cluster bomb use can be positively determined in seven incidents (another five are possible but unconfirmed)... ...Altogether, some ninety to 150 civilians died from cluster bomb use... Any comments on this? Should I continue quoting from the report?
to my mind the most important statement in the HRW report you cited was this: Operation Allied Force began on March 24, 1999 after more than a year of effort by the international community led by NATO to find a negotiated solution in Kosovo. After more than a year. The Serbs raped, murdered, and terrorised the Kosovars for more than a year while NATO tried to come to a peaceful solution. Russia on the other waited waited what, more than an hour? Mor than a sixth of a day? Then there's this: one month into the air war, alliance leaders decided to intensify the air campaign by expanding the target set to include military-industrial infrastructure, news media, and othertargets considered to be of a strategic nature. For one entire month after hostilities began the Serbs refused to pull out of Kosovo. Was it really a surprise to anyone that the ante was upped? Then there's this: Though a couple of dozen incidents would dog NATO throughout the war in its press and propaganda battles with the Yugoslav government, from another perspective, the limitation of "collateral damage" was a political imperative to successful conclusion of an alliance war. And when reporting on the number of deaths, you left out: But between 279 and 318 of the dead-between 56 and 60 percent of the total number of deaths-were in Kosovo. 3/5ths of the civilian deaths occurred in Kosovar, not in Serbia! You also skipped over: Human Rights Watch was able to determine the intended target in sixty-two of the ninety incidents (68 percent). Of these, the greater number of incidents was caused as a result of attacks on military barracks, headquarters, and depots; thirteen were a result of attacks on bridges (and one tunnel); six resulted from attacks on telecommunications and air defense facilities; five each resulted from attacks on industrial facilities, oil installations, and airfields; and seven were as a result of attacks on convoys or on what were perceived to be military forces in the field. In other words seven out of ten of the civilians who were killed were in military targets at the time. To have ignored this statistic show either a level of stupidity or a level of duplicity that shows you to be a true son of Mother Russia. And of course, this was not considered important by you: The incident at Korisa (incident no. 57) also raises important questions of Yugoslav responsibility for some civilian deaths attributed to NATO bombing. In this case, NATO did not apply
-
to my mind the most important statement in the HRW report you cited was this: Operation Allied Force began on March 24, 1999 after more than a year of effort by the international community led by NATO to find a negotiated solution in Kosovo. After more than a year. The Serbs raped, murdered, and terrorised the Kosovars for more than a year while NATO tried to come to a peaceful solution. Russia on the other waited waited what, more than an hour? Mor than a sixth of a day? Then there's this: one month into the air war, alliance leaders decided to intensify the air campaign by expanding the target set to include military-industrial infrastructure, news media, and othertargets considered to be of a strategic nature. For one entire month after hostilities began the Serbs refused to pull out of Kosovo. Was it really a surprise to anyone that the ante was upped? Then there's this: Though a couple of dozen incidents would dog NATO throughout the war in its press and propaganda battles with the Yugoslav government, from another perspective, the limitation of "collateral damage" was a political imperative to successful conclusion of an alliance war. And when reporting on the number of deaths, you left out: But between 279 and 318 of the dead-between 56 and 60 percent of the total number of deaths-were in Kosovo. 3/5ths of the civilian deaths occurred in Kosovar, not in Serbia! You also skipped over: Human Rights Watch was able to determine the intended target in sixty-two of the ninety incidents (68 percent). Of these, the greater number of incidents was caused as a result of attacks on military barracks, headquarters, and depots; thirteen were a result of attacks on bridges (and one tunnel); six resulted from attacks on telecommunications and air defense facilities; five each resulted from attacks on industrial facilities, oil installations, and airfields; and seven were as a result of attacks on convoys or on what were perceived to be military forces in the field. In other words seven out of ten of the civilians who were killed were in military targets at the time. To have ignored this statistic show either a level of stupidity or a level of duplicity that shows you to be a true son of Mother Russia. And of course, this was not considered important by you: The incident at Korisa (incident no. 57) also raises important questions of Yugoslav responsibility for some civilian deaths attributed to NATO bombing. In this case, NATO did not apply
Oakman wrote:
After more than a year.
Were NATO soldiers or US/Britain/Germany/etc citizens under attack all that time? eh? I asked you to comment NATO actions, but you keep proving me that Serbs are bad guys instead. OK, let's assume they are pretty bad. But how does it justify bombing of bridges, heating plants or refugee columns? How the hell does it justify cluster bomb usage? How? And does it mean that it would be OK for Russia to bomb TV stations somewhere in Tbilisi?
Oakman wrote:
3/5ths of the civilian deaths occurred in Kosovar, not in Serbia!
So your point is that killing civilians in Kosovo is something different than killing them in Serbia? Well, well, well... But even so, 2/5ths of 500 is 200. Is it too few for you? Oakman (what is your name by the way?), I must admit you have a talent not to answer my questions, leading discussion away from what I ask you. Each time I ask you to prove your words (or disprove my words) with any link to independent source, you suddenly become deaf and start talking about something else or simply insult me. It is a very common behavior for one who simply has no arguments to prove his point. You try to gain the upper hand by shouting instead.
Regards, Nikolay
-
Oakman wrote:
After more than a year.
Were NATO soldiers or US/Britain/Germany/etc citizens under attack all that time? eh? I asked you to comment NATO actions, but you keep proving me that Serbs are bad guys instead. OK, let's assume they are pretty bad. But how does it justify bombing of bridges, heating plants or refugee columns? How the hell does it justify cluster bomb usage? How? And does it mean that it would be OK for Russia to bomb TV stations somewhere in Tbilisi?
Oakman wrote:
3/5ths of the civilian deaths occurred in Kosovar, not in Serbia!
So your point is that killing civilians in Kosovo is something different than killing them in Serbia? Well, well, well... But even so, 2/5ths of 500 is 200. Is it too few for you? Oakman (what is your name by the way?), I must admit you have a talent not to answer my questions, leading discussion away from what I ask you. Each time I ask you to prove your words (or disprove my words) with any link to independent source, you suddenly become deaf and start talking about something else or simply insult me. It is a very common behavior for one who simply has no arguments to prove his point. You try to gain the upper hand by shouting instead.
Regards, Nikolay
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
Were NATO soldiers or US/Britain/Germany/etc citizens under attack all that time? eh?
No, the Kosovars were. What you don't seem to understand is that my concern here is not with the death of soldiers but of civilians, especially those who are trapped between two opposing armed forces.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
you keep proving me that Serbs are bad guys instead
Nope, I was pointing out how long NATO attempted to solve the problem diplomatically. I made the point explicitly. I guess you just didn't see it.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
So your point is that killing civilians in Kosovo is something different than killing them in Serbia?
It certainly is when it turns out that the vast majority of their deaths came after being used as human shields.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
But even so, 2/5ths of 500 is 200. Is it too few for you?
Now it's 200 too many. But I am also aware of how few it is for a conflict that went on for 18 months. A dozen civilian casualties in a month suggests a very high level of restraint on the part of the NATO forces.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
I must admit you have a talent not to answer my questions
I answered your last questions very specifically. To lie about it seems to be your stock in trade.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
You try to gain the upper hand by shouting instead.
More lies.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
Were NATO soldiers or US/Britain/Germany/etc citizens under attack all that time? eh?
No, the Kosovars were. What you don't seem to understand is that my concern here is not with the death of soldiers but of civilians, especially those who are trapped between two opposing armed forces.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
you keep proving me that Serbs are bad guys instead
Nope, I was pointing out how long NATO attempted to solve the problem diplomatically. I made the point explicitly. I guess you just didn't see it.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
So your point is that killing civilians in Kosovo is something different than killing them in Serbia?
It certainly is when it turns out that the vast majority of their deaths came after being used as human shields.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
But even so, 2/5ths of 500 is 200. Is it too few for you?
Now it's 200 too many. But I am also aware of how few it is for a conflict that went on for 18 months. A dozen civilian casualties in a month suggests a very high level of restraint on the part of the NATO forces.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
I must admit you have a talent not to answer my questions
I answered your last questions very specifically. To lie about it seems to be your stock in trade.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
You try to gain the upper hand by shouting instead.
More lies.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
No, the Kosovars were.
That's why it's not quite correct to hold NATO up an example of patience. I doubt they would be so patient if THEIR citizens were being killed by Serbs every minute, hour after hour. And I bet you know for sure that NATO would never wait in that case trying to solve the problem diplomatically.
Oakman wrote:
It certainly is when it turns out that the vast majority of their deaths came after being used as human shields.
Does it really turn out? Here is what HRW says: On the basis of available evidence it is not possible to determine positively that Yugoslav police or army troops deliberately forced civilians to group near them, nor to establish the motive for such action.
Oakman wrote:
But I am also aware of how few it is for a conflict that went on for 18 months.
Operation Allied Force began on March 24, 1999 and ended on June 9, 1999. That is about 11 weeks, not 18 months. Should I blame you for the lie, eh? So, we have more than 200 deaths in Serbia and about 300 deaths in Kosovo just in 11 weeks - still too few? By the way, since you pretend to be very informed in what was going on in Georgia, may I ask you the total number of civilian deaths caused by the Russian army actions? So that we could compare civilian death rates in Serbia and Georgia.
Oakman wrote:
I answered your last questions very specifically. To lie about it seems to be your stock in trade.
You said nothing about cluster bomb usage or choosing bridges, heating plants, TV stations and refugees columns as targets. Or you simply do not want to talk about that? And should I remind you that you still have not proven your statement that Russian tanks moved to Georgia, not South Ossetia, before August 11?
Regards, Nikolay