BBC has evidence of Georgian war crimes in S. Ossetia
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Your bias has never been more obvious. While Georgian "war crimes" could only be classified as collateral damage caused by the fighting, Russian crimes were much more widespread and mostly commited AFTER the cease fire was declared.
Russian troops demolished entire villages, they pillaged the towns they occupied and destroyed anything of value to hurt Georgia. There are satellite photos in circulation proving that Russians destroyed entire villages just before they left the "buffer zones".
But yeah, that's not worth a thread on CFC, because that would goes against Holy Russia and St.Putin and his divine rule
You're so predictable, Ralphy.
Russian troops demolished entire villages, they pillaged the towns they occupied and destroyed anything of value to hurt Georgia. There are satellite photos in circulation proving that Russians destroyed entire villages just before they left the "buffer zones".
But yeah, that's not worth a thread on CFC, because that would goes against Holy Russia and St.Putin and his divine rule
You're so predictable, Ralphy.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Your bias has never been more obvious. While Georgian "war crimes" could only be classified as collateral damage caused by the fighting, Russian crimes were much more widespread and mostly commited AFTER the cease fire was declared.
Russian troops demolished entire villages, they pillaged the towns they occupied and destroyed anything of value to hurt Georgia. There are satellite photos in circulation proving that Russians destroyed entire villages just before they left the "buffer zones".
But yeah, that's not worth a thread on CFC, because that would goes against Holy Russia and St.Putin and his divine rule
You're so predictable, Ralphy.
Ehhh... did actually read the links? Its about Georgians targeting civiliant tower blocks with Grad missiles in the middle of the night... incidentallty, when it comes to predictbale, am I the only one who suspected it was only a matter of time before Winner came on this thread to defend Georgian war criminals?
LesCanadiens
Deity
You don't understand. When Russia does something, it is a crime against humanity. When anyone opposed to Russia does that thing, it's a righteous act of defiance by a shining beacon of democracy against the evil, murderous Russian imperialists. That's just the way it works. Accept it. If you dispute it, you are one of those useful idiots that Russians love.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Again, collateral damage. It's to be expected when using artillery, especially when used by incompetent commanders.
Russian/Ossetian crimes were much more thorough and deliberate:
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH report on Russian/Ossetian crimes in Georgia
Russians killed more people with their "lets kill a fly with a sledgehammer" approach, deliberately looted Georgian towns and villages, ethnically cleansed S.Ossetia and expelled thousands of Georgians, but RedRalphy is more concerned about few artillery shells hitting civilian targets because certain military commanders were incompetent idiots.
You're such a hypocrite it's almost funny
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Sure, but they don't ignore the much more serious crimes commited by the other side. You are, because it fits into your puzzle-mozaic where Russians are the good and innocent liberators of the poor victims Ossetians, who were brutally attacked by the evil Georgians.
simply put, you're a typical biased Western leftie-intellectual I laught at:
Now you can go on spitting fire and sulfur, I am outta here
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Sure, but they don't ignore the much more serious crimes commited by the other side. You are, because it fits into your puzzle-mozaic where Russians are the good and innocent liberators of the poor victims Ossetians, who were brutally attacked by the evil Georgians.
simply put, you're a typical biased Western leftie-intellectual I laught at:
Now you can go on spitting fire and sulfur, I am outta here
brilliant post
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Here's a link, I think its to the report, but I cant watch it here so tell me if its something else: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7696374.stm
Verbose
Deity
Here's the problem, as far as I can even begin to figure it out.
The point of propping up Georgia as a budding democracy is that the west, the EU, US, etc., need some kind of positive example among the former Soviet states. The objective is to see the former Soviet states all turn into politically stable, democratic, free, and economically prosperous political entities. I.e. remade in the likeness of the western European democracies.
To all intents and purposes Saakashvili's Georgia has been the best candidate for that for years. Still is.
Except with the decision to try to use force to resolve Georgia's internal issues, Saakashvili in fact shoot himself and all of Georgia in the foot, Big Time, while making his western backers completely lose face, allowing Putin et al. to ride high and mighty, after having this present dropped in their lap.
At that point the westerners betting on Georgia cannot 1) just drop it, or even 2) publicly rap Saakashvili's knuckles for doing a) something as damn fool as trying military force in the face of a Russian no-go, and b) in fact pissing all over what a western democracy is supposed to be about these days.
In a previous discussion RRW and others suggested my stance was that rub of the conflict was simply that the western democracies "mean well". That's reducing the issues involved to kindergarten level. Besides, that's not it. The point of the western democracies is that you are not allowed to shoot some of the crew underway while manning the ship of state. That goes for Georgia with respect to irredent provinces as much as anyone else.
The point of the western style liberal democracies isn't that they are full of "good people who mean well". They are in fact full of bad people (or as morally ambiguous as the rest of humanity), but operating within a system that has proven relatively good at making even bastards conform to certain basic standards, due to the way the game of politics are played. (Democracies get off on compromise, rule of law, and trying to square the circle of respecting all manner of minorities; non-democracies tend to favour forms of "maximalist", winner-takes-all politics, loser-gets-to-die at least as an optional extra.) Already the ancient Greek knew that if the Tyrant is a virtuous man, so will his state be, and all will be well. They also knew that the nature of power is such that virtue tends to become a non-option for a tyrant eventually. (Apparently we have a number of posters around here who do consider Putin/Medvedev men of virtue, with whom one can safely entrust the future of Russia, and whatever neighbours get caught up in the action.)
Anyway, Saakashvili broke against a whole slew of basic precepts of a democractic society. If that was all that was allowed, his western sponsors would drop him like a shot.
But since Georgia has now had Russia walk all over it, between these two political entities, Georgia is still a better bet for a democratic development than Russia. The trajectories of the two were, until the conflict, such that Georgia was closing the gap towards what's considered acceptable western standards of democracy, while Russia is moving away from it. And Georgia is still the star pupil, as it were (the competition in the region isn't overwhelming), of liberal western democracy among the former Soviet republics.
Drop Georgia, and we can be sure it goes to the dogs, depriving the west of its best bet on getting a state in their likeness to work as a positive example in the region.
Of course, Saakashvili turning out to be a homicidal fook like this hasn't helped anything one iota.
And then there's of course the matter whether some people even consider western style liberal democracy worthwhile in the first place, or just a lot of shambolic hypocrisy.
The point of propping up Georgia as a budding democracy is that the west, the EU, US, etc., need some kind of positive example among the former Soviet states. The objective is to see the former Soviet states all turn into politically stable, democratic, free, and economically prosperous political entities. I.e. remade in the likeness of the western European democracies.
To all intents and purposes Saakashvili's Georgia has been the best candidate for that for years. Still is.
Except with the decision to try to use force to resolve Georgia's internal issues, Saakashvili in fact shoot himself and all of Georgia in the foot, Big Time, while making his western backers completely lose face, allowing Putin et al. to ride high and mighty, after having this present dropped in their lap.
At that point the westerners betting on Georgia cannot 1) just drop it, or even 2) publicly rap Saakashvili's knuckles for doing a) something as damn fool as trying military force in the face of a Russian no-go, and b) in fact pissing all over what a western democracy is supposed to be about these days.
In a previous discussion RRW and others suggested my stance was that rub of the conflict was simply that the western democracies "mean well". That's reducing the issues involved to kindergarten level. Besides, that's not it. The point of the western democracies is that you are not allowed to shoot some of the crew underway while manning the ship of state. That goes for Georgia with respect to irredent provinces as much as anyone else.
The point of the western style liberal democracies isn't that they are full of "good people who mean well". They are in fact full of bad people (or as morally ambiguous as the rest of humanity), but operating within a system that has proven relatively good at making even bastards conform to certain basic standards, due to the way the game of politics are played. (Democracies get off on compromise, rule of law, and trying to square the circle of respecting all manner of minorities; non-democracies tend to favour forms of "maximalist", winner-takes-all politics, loser-gets-to-die at least as an optional extra.) Already the ancient Greek knew that if the Tyrant is a virtuous man, so will his state be, and all will be well. They also knew that the nature of power is such that virtue tends to become a non-option for a tyrant eventually. (Apparently we have a number of posters around here who do consider Putin/Medvedev men of virtue, with whom one can safely entrust the future of Russia, and whatever neighbours get caught up in the action.)
Anyway, Saakashvili broke against a whole slew of basic precepts of a democractic society. If that was all that was allowed, his western sponsors would drop him like a shot.
But since Georgia has now had Russia walk all over it, between these two political entities, Georgia is still a better bet for a democratic development than Russia. The trajectories of the two were, until the conflict, such that Georgia was closing the gap towards what's considered acceptable western standards of democracy, while Russia is moving away from it. And Georgia is still the star pupil, as it were (the competition in the region isn't overwhelming), of liberal western democracy among the former Soviet republics.
Drop Georgia, and we can be sure it goes to the dogs, depriving the west of its best bet on getting a state in their likeness to work as a positive example in the region.
Of course, Saakashvili turning out to be a homicidal fook like this hasn't helped anything one iota.
And then there's of course the matter whether some people even consider western style liberal democracy worthwhile in the first place, or just a lot of shambolic hypocrisy.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Of course. UK and US would (and should) have let Sakashvili to continue.
Amazing argument. I support UN action in those circumstances!
Not surprising at all. GRAD bombardment was KNOWN on the day they started and it was KNOWN that targets was civilians. BBC just confirms what Russian news agencies have been saying all the time, but months later. It is a great practice that allows them to report credible news that contradict the party line without loosing face: "Yes I am sorry I called you a brainwashed propaganda mashine's mouth, but at the time I was busy shouting myself".
Neither side had the moral highground here. Georgia tried to do to S. Ossetia exactly what Russia would later do to Georgia. Ironic, but it's sad that so many innocent people had to give their lives in this political game.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Indeed, but you forgot another layer - US involvement.
Abaddon
Deity
I think Russia should go back to war with thme now
Agreed.
What do you think UN is there for?
If the U.S. ignores the U.N. at its whim, why should Russia follow the U.N.?
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
But the U.S. simply must support one group of criminals against the other!
Evil Bunny
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 31
I seriously hate American media and how they brainwash us into thinking Russia's the aggressor.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Could you please keep your gross misuse of adjectives in check
Aren't we at less that 200 people killed in the country wide scale Georgian invasion now? That number alone is enough to prove there was no deliberate genocide/ethnic cleansing/war crimes as a matter of policy.
So apparently the Russians talk about "devastating" and "leveling" an entire city, but amazingly like GI Joe all the poeple hoped out of the houses before they blew up! Really people, apply some common sense.
So, since the BBC hasn't actually provided anything pointing to warcrimes, what is all the hubub about?
There was no US involvement in the fighting.
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
A 'massacre'? Fine, I'll hand it to you, 'raping their infrastructure' was a 'justified' action by Russia. In that same reality then, causing the subsequent humanitarian crisis within Georgia and doing nothing while innocent Georgians were killed or their homes burned and pillaged by South Ossetians wass justified as well.
I agree, both sides were stupid, at fault, and the war was completely and totally unnecessary. There were nonviolent means of getting reintegration for Georgia and security at the south for Russia, namely the United Nations. However, due to the actions by both sides, we now have a humanitarian crisis in both Georgia and South Ossetia, near-anarchy in Dagestan (a bordering Russian province) and increased tensions in the entire region.
Similar threads
- Poll
