Thread: Putin's increasing police state and smth about some other countries

President Dmitry Medvedev announced having signed a presidential executive order defining the new regulations on the Security Council.

Указ Президента

Actually, civilan authorities are going to be replaced by "siloviki" and some experts call it a "quiet coup".

It was a joy to read this. I must agree on all points. I was born here and I love this place, but there are two usa's - one where the people live, and the other where the governing powers hold court. I'm a dissatisfied citizen for the moment, because after all that's gone down since '01, I'm a little hurt that my countrymen won't prove to me, and all others, beyond all doubt, that Bin Laden was killed by us (if true). I'm like the woman who's been cheated on, wanting to believe what she is being told by the man, but unable to have faith.. If it's true, I would be relieved to see fingerprints, DNA or something that shows this man was real, and truly died as they say. (But that's a digression - sorry.)

Originally Posted by Hanna

Reading what you say is interesting... I think you've got your country pinned down - and it's a real shame things should be like that. It could be such a great country. The "dumbing down" of Americans seems almost deliberate. And most Americans are so affected by this that they don't even realise it's a problem! Catch 22!

When "news" has to be entertainment and appeal to the lowest common denominator.... also please the shareholders of the company that owns the TV network and accommodate for insane levels of constant commercial breaks.... then it's no surprise that the average person has no idea what's really going on in the world and in their country.

What's happened with American education I don't know, but I can tell you that "dumb Americans" are a source of lots of jokes in Western Europe for example. Can't even point out the major countries on a world map; know NOTHING about the history or real state of politics of major countries and have picked up some shockingly incorrect misinformation about some parts of the world. It seems to me that the only way to get a proper education in the US; either to go to a top private school, or read up about things on your own. (Respect to those who have done that!) I think this is really sad.... the ignorance of people means they can be tricked to think that it's necessary to regularly invade other countries, spend money and sacrifice lives for wars that are not needed for anyone apart from commercial interests. Why some smarter European nations play along with this I have no idea... but many people in Europe are furious about their countries' (largely symbolic) representation in America's wars.

These are some of the reasons I've been here these last few years. Sequestered thinking is dangerous. It depletes one's respect for human value. I often say that I am lucky to be surrounded by people such as you all from whom I learn a lot. And it's sad but true that many of us don't seem to know what we should about the world at large. When we in public school were taught geography, we were taught the States; in World History, never referred to maps, only to dates and paragraphs of written history. I learned geography, like what portion of Russian I know, from the internet. Many things gain value and excellence when marketed; here, I think, education when marketed loses value and excellence. Even integrity, at some point.

Maybe there is merit in redesigning some of these things. Ousting existing media channels and creating new ones, with more transparent processes of information collection and delivery, less moving parts. Revamping private education to market it not just toward use toward financial success as is severely the focus now, but instead toward actual knowledge of the world.. but there are more obstacles than I have digits to count them on.

If nothing else, certainly you've got me thinking.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Bilderberg seems just too complicated a conspiracy for me to believe in. Freemasons, Jews etc; same thing.
If there IS a worldwide conspiracy, then it's probably a bit more secret. But most likely there is nothing very organised in place.
I lean more towards Ramil's point; that the "conspiracy" is fairly open secret - it's just that media is totally ignoring it.

A complex worldwide conspiracy would be too complicated I think: A human life is too short and a real worldwide conspiracy would take many generations to implement. Nobody lives long enough to keep the conspiracy running, or see it come to fruition.

That's pretty much my thought on this, too. When we speak of the emotional landscape of the subject, I would say that my *feeling* is there's more than meets the eye, and that the threads we pull on run deep into the fabric. But I have no evidence, so I leave my Shining moments where they belong for the time being.=)

People, when you say that it's senators or congressmen and presidents who make the politics these days, you are wrong. As kidkboom has just pointed out - they are dump people mentally incapable of doing anything real. Moreover - they have no real instruments of doing anything major. A government (any government) simply represents the owner of money who had brought them on the political pinnacle to express their views and interests. I still think that this world is ruled by 200-300 powerful families (or clans) and everything that is happenning in the world is done for their profit. When some political or economical event happens I ask myself - who benefits from this? Old buddy Hercule Poirot used this trick many times and always succeeded in finding out who the criminal was.
I won't ever believe that Nicolas Sarkozy or David Cameron or Hillary Clinton could start a war merely for the defense of 'innocent civilians molested by the evil regimes'. I won't ever believe that political circles in France, UK or USA even cared about these poor victims of dictatorships. I won't believe they ever cared about anything but their continued well-being.
@Crocodile: I don't know whether the Gaddafi's intentions triggered an attack on him or not, but the official story they tell us about why we are bombing Libya is even less plausible. And no, I don't think it concerns oil directly. I can only think of other player who might be interested in the removal of Gaddafi - Saudi Arabya. Perhaps some kind of a bargain has taken place between EU and the Saudis, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Hehe Croc! There are always different ways to interpret history.

True words.

Originally Posted by Hanna

But it's interesting that lately there it is always the same country that invades other countries and builds up endless stories of how gruesome these countries are, and why they need to be invaded for everyones best. Yet when you scratch the surface; oil, currency or spreading commercialism is always there in the background. If I see a clear pattern then no amount of hype can get me to look around it. And I feel there is a pattern.

Good catch! The only problem is to find out what's behind that pattern. As Mr. Lenin used to say: "The politics is the most concentrated expression of the economics." As I mentioned earlier, I think the sole purpose of the local armies is to either promote or defend the local economies. What else would you expect? Do you think Charles XII of Sweden was any different? Any politician would use the force if he could, be it the US or Sweden, or Russia, or China, or New Zealand, no exceptions. The NATO presently is the most dominant military power on the planet, and that's what is observed from the outside as a "pattern". If you still don't believe me, have a closer look at the African military conflicts of the recent history. Still the same pattern.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Most of the people who work in politics in my US are idiots - far below the requisite intellect of folks who can fool the people en-masse.. Hanna, I for one don't doubt we're being fooled. But I know the puppeteer has got to be better than the ones we've seen.

Yeah, I can see your point. The only thing is that the politicians of any other country are no different. And I think if you take a closer look, you'll find that in the constant power games the fools are being eliminated first. Those we see on the top of the political food chain are not necessarily well-educated, but very smart evil men with no principles and empathy whatsoever. If they act like idiots, that means they have their reasons to look that way at that moment. As to the shoe incident... well, give them a break, they are still people. Others chew on their their ties just as easy as they chew on their political opponents. You get the picture.

Originally Posted by Ramil

People, when you say that it's senators or congressmen and presidents who make the politics these days, you are wrong. As kidkboom has just pointed out - they are dump people mentally incapable of doing anything real.

Сперва добейся. (ТМ)

Originally Posted by Ramil

Moreover - they have no real instruments of doing anything major. A government (any government) simply represents the owner of money who had brought them on the political pinnacle to express their views and interests.

That used to be true long time ago, but these days the same businesses contribute to both parties. How on Earth a government could represent all those with the different business needs?

Originally Posted by Ramil

I still think that this world is ruled by 200-300 powerful families (or clans) and everything that is happenning in the world is done for their profit.

Yeah, we had a long talk about it some time back. I see it differently.

Originally Posted by Ramil

When some political or economical event happens I ask myself - who benefits from this? Old buddy Hercule Poirot used this trick many times and always succeeded in finding out who the criminal was.

Right, but Hercule Poirot is a character in a book. There are other books in which a criminal is not the one who seems to benefit the most, but commits the crime to make the police imprison another person for life as a revenge. IRL, we have an assasination of General Lev Rochlin and his wife was prosecuted on the grounds she benefited from his death. And so on and so forth. It's true the one who commits the crime benefits from the crime in some way, but it's not always the one who benefits the most and/or "the most" is subjective.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I won't ever believe that Nicolas Sarkozy or David Cameron or Hillary Clinton could start a war merely for the defense of 'innocent civilians molested by the evil regimes'. I won't ever believe that political circles in France, UK or USA even cared about these poor victims of dictatorships. I won't believe they ever cared about anything but their continued well-being.

I agree with each and every word you said.

Originally Posted by Ramil

@Crocodile: I don't know whether the Gaddafi's intentions triggered an attack on him or not

You kidding me, right? Earlier, you insisted you know that for sure in a rather certain way: "Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country." But now you back off and say you don't know? After all the homework you sent me?! That's just mean!!

Originally Posted by Ramil

but the official story they tell us about why we are bombing Libya is even less plausible.

Yup. Sadly it's not worth a dime.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Wow, I'll be darned if you are not completely right. Saddam Hussein tried it too....

Ok, I finally got to look into that as well. Here's what I've found:

1. Saddam Hussein's decision was out there by at least Nov. 13, 2000 => Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks - TIME
2. The Second Gulf War started on March 20, 2003.

Please, feel free to draw your own conclusion as to how tight those events are related.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You kidding me, right? Earlier, you insisted you know that for sure in a rather certain way: "Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country." But now you back off and say you don't know? After all the homework you sent me?! That's just mean!!

Who am I? Nostradamus? I said what I said. Saddam wanted this and so did Gaddafi. There may be other reasons, but I only noticed similarities. What concerns the timeline you've posted - it's hard to say exactly what Saddam had actually undertaken during this period. Surely, you're not going to tell me about his threat to the civilized world with WMD? I must research however if the leaders of Tunis and Egypt in the North and Bahrain and Syria in the South supported Gaddafi's ideas.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

1. Saddam Hussein's decision was out there by at least Nov. 13, 2000 => Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks - TIME
2. The Second Gulf War started on March 20, 2003.

Please, feel free to draw your own conclusion as to how tight those events are related.

He was talking about it just before the FIRST gulf war too, I've read. And TIME magazine? That "unbiased" publication? I'd rather trust Donald Duck!

But if you want to see the USA:s wars as completely justified freedom-and-democracy missions for the benefit of all humanity... then I don't think there is much anyone can say that will change your mind! After all, that is the official version. But did you believe in the official version in the papers when you lived in the USSR too? For example: The USSR war in Afghanistan.... That was just a humanitarian response to pleas of help from the majority of people in Afghanistan, who needed help to protect them from oppression, religious fanaticism and imperialist exploitation.... Completely justified war, right? Just like the gulf wars, the modern Afghanistan war etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Completely justified war, right?

WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'..

Originally Posted by kidkboom

WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'..

It's good for business:

• First you sell the weapons...

• Then you sell the material and services to build up everything that's been destroyed.

• Then you and your friends get some good deals on whatever are the best business opportunities in the country that was defeated..

• Then you sell security services and other services to the occupying forces, etc, etc.

And if anyone asks why all this is happening, you make sure that the papers and TV staions that you and your friends own, say that it was all to fight terrorism, protect human rights, democracy and freedom.

Generals gathered in their masses / Just like witches at black masses / Evil minds that plot destruction / Sorcerors of death's construction / In the fields the bodies burning / As the war machine keeps turning / Death and hatred to mankind / Poisoning their brainwashed minds / (Oh lord yeah!) / Politicians hide themselves away / They only started the war / Why should they go out to fight? / They leave that role to the poor.. YouTube - Black Sabbath War Pigs

Originally Posted by Ramil

Who am I? Nostradamus?

Well, Nostradamus used to tell the future using codes, I kind of wanted you to tell the past in a very clear way. So, I was kind of hoping you're the logical complementary of Nostradamus.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I said what I said. Saddam wanted this and so did Gaddafi. There may be other reasons, but I only noticed similarities.

Alright, but that probably does not deserve the certain tone in: "Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency [...] immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country." thing because my understanding is that way of thinking is part of maintaining the whole "USDs are only supported by the US military, and not by anything real" canvas, on which you use to build up other things.

Originally Posted by Ramil

What concerns the timeline you've posted - it's hard to say exactly what Saddam had actually undertaken during this period.

Yes, I agree. And I think that we would not know for real in the near future why Bush invaded Iraq. I mean, we can try and make some guesses, but that's all they are - the guesses.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Surely, you're not going to tell me about his threat to the civilized world with WMD?

No, I'm not. That would be an insult to your intelligence.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I must research however if the leaders of Tunis and Egypt in the North and Bahrain and Syria in the South supported Gaddafi's ideas.

Sure thing. Please, let me know how that reasearch would go. Especially about Egypt.

Originally Posted by Hanna

He was talking about it just before the FIRST gulf war too, I've read.

I'm curious, so can you provide a link? Also, there's a HUGE difference between talking and announcing a decision, won't you think? For example, I'm talking about going on the super-dive marathon across the Atlantics. But, if I officially announce my decision to do that, that's another matter, is that not?

Originally Posted by Hanna

And TIME magazine? That "unbiased" publication? I'd rather trust Donald Duck!

I'm not sure you paid good attention to what I said. The only thing I want you to trust in the TIME magazine is the issue date.

Originally Posted by Hanna

But if you want to see the USA:s wars as completely justified freedom-and-democracy missions for the benefit of all humanity...

Goodness gracious!!!! I think we've been through that before. NEVER EVER had I said that. Why to put those words in my mouth?! It's truly wonderous to see a Political Science graduate that can only perceive the world monochromatically.

Originally Posted by Hanna

then I don't think there is much anyone can say that will change your mind!

Well, as I said I don't, so go ahead and change my mind.

Originally Posted by Hanna

After all, that is the official version. But did you believe in the official version in the papers when you lived in the USSR too? For example: The USSR war in Afghanistan.... That was just a humanitarian response to pleas of help from the majority of people in Afghanistan, who needed help to protect them from oppression, religious fanaticism and imperialist exploitation.... Completely justified war, right? Just like the gulf wars, the modern Afghanistan war etc, etc.

Ok, so you made my decision on my behalf without really asking me and now you're trying to educate me the official version can not be reflecting the entire truth? Hmm... what can I say...

Originally Posted by Hanna

It's good for business:

A word about the images you attached. The Advertising Standards Canada had recently started a campaing which can probably address those creative images of yours:

YouTube - Styx - Too Much Time On My Hands

Я люблю читать ее откровения =)

Н. ФАТЕЕВА: ...А что с Грузией вытворяют? Это просто недостойно! Мало того, что нельзя захватывать чужие территории…
С. БУНТМАН: Ну, как же, Саакашвили же сам напал.
Н. ФАТЕЕВА: Ну, конечно! Их спровоцировали… устраивали… Это для дураков, и все! А людям, которые понимают, что к чему, понятно.

Н. ФАТЕЕВА: Если анализировать теракты – Беслан, "Норд-Ост", взрывы домов - и последующие захваты наших прав, можно подумать, что это была спецоперация с целью лишить нас всего.

Н. ФАТЕЕВА: С каждым годом вокруг Победы нагнетается все больший психоз, я в это время просто тихо живу. Сколько мы живем, нам рассказывают про войну, нам это надоело.

К. ЛАРИНА – А наш взгляд, вот, может быть, так спросить… В течение всей жизни вашей был ли период в России наиболее благоприятный для жизни человека?
Н. ФАТЕЕВА – Он был очень короткий. 90-е годы.
К. ЛАРИНА – Лихие 90-е проклятые?
Н. ФАТЕЕВА – Да нет, это всё вранье, я называю это путинской пропагандой, это они, его политтехнологи для того, чтобы людям дурить головы, для того, чтобы они совершенно запутались в происходящих событиях, неправда, что вы.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Я знаю, какие мужики нравятся Фатеевой. Смазливые как Евгений Фокс из фильма "Место встречи изменить нельзя" (она там играла Иру Соболевскую). И вообще, чего с неё взять, раз три раза замужем: сегодня нравится, завтра не нравится...

Originally Posted by Kidkbloom

(And, if we moved in on Saddam because of currency, then am I to believe that the stories of human torture wherein children were tied to ceiling finans until they were swung to death were fabricated? Or were they just "icing on the cake" for reasons to move in military?)

Actually, I vaguely remember the events around the 1st gulf war - was in school at the time, was not interested in politics at that time and paid very little attention since my country was not involved at all. Howe.ver, it was brought up in school

The stories about Iraqi soldiers pulling infants out of incubators were widely circulated though.

I remember a teacher saying "I think you can take that with a pinch of salt - it's typical war propaganda".

Imagine yourself: If you were in an invasion force, invading a country that you hated (and bear in mind, the Iraqis did NOT hate Kuwait, their neighbours and fellow Arabs). Would you honestly pull out innocent babies from incubators and deliberately try to hurt civilians? The Kuwaitis hadn't actually done anything to the Iraqis, so there was no reason for Iraqis to feel any passionate hatred against them. It goes against everything that's known about human behaviour. Iraqis are humans, many religious with rich culture and old traditions. Perhaps there was one incident of some crazy person doing that, but the rest was fabricated and there is a lot of fabrication around.

I read an article in a respectable magazine that was genuinely suggesting that TERRORISM was funded by income from illegal piracy online, and from child pornography. So that when you download from a torrent site or similar, then you are "funding terrorism". Give me a break!

With media feeding you so much rubbish, you have to use your own head to decide what to believe in or not. Not always an easy job!

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil
I still think that this world is ruled by 200-300 powerful families (or clans) and everything that is happenning in the world is done for their profit.


Yeah, we had a long talk about it some time back. I see it differently.

The Rich Are About To Get Very, Very Rich: Study Finds Global Millionaire Wealth Set To More Than Double By 2020 | zero hedge

Scroll down to find:

"And then a quick look at the creme of the crop: the households who likely account for well over half of the total trillions in assets held, those who have over $30 million (remember the Talebian scale issue here), are only 871 currently, of which well over half, or 496 reside in the US." => In other words, a small number of families do control majority of global assets. In other words they run most of the world. Study was done by Deloitte , an accounting firm.

Originally Posted by Ramil
Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country. What conspiracy? It's all there and nobody makes a secret out of it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/zim...ops+to+zero%29

It is the normal experience of countries that go through hyperinflation, that they never want to go through it again, and so they go to something like gold backed. Will they be bombed? Don't know. Stay tuned...

Zimbabwe, a country rich in natural resources, took so long to figure out that it was nothing but a puppet in the hands of western monetary interests. [...]
It sits on gold reserves worth trillions. It has the world’s second largest reserves of platinum, has got alluvial diamonds that can fetch the nation $2 billion annually and even boasts of chrome and coal deposits.

The magic word is corruption. In order to extract the resources you need to build the infrastructure. In order to process the resources (like clean up the raw metals, etc.) you need even more advanced infrastructure. In order for that to happen, you need to do the long-term investment. You need to educate specialists. And so on and so forth. Why would the Zimbabwe government be interested in that? They already have everything they want. As you know, it doesn't really matter how much wealth you have, the more important that you have more than the others around you. Therefore, the government goes the easy way and outsources the excavation, the processing, and all the rest to the external companies who have the expertise and the necessary tools. The government officials would prefer hand out the contracts to those companies who give them the biggest piles of cash in return. That would only be profitable for the companies if they keep the extracting costs very low, pay very low salaries to the locals, and pay very low taxes to the state. So, in some way the ordinary people's poverty is beneficial to those companies and the government officials. The golden/diamond or similar currency is not any news. While it not only slows down the production economy, it also has clear benefits of hoarding the currency, creating shortages of currency, and slowing down the overall business activity. But it makes the currency more stable, that's true. Gold is gold, no matter who presently holds the power in Zimbabwe and/or if tomorrow there's going to be a civil war in there. So, by introducing such currency, Zimbabwe officials would be richer and the other Zimbabwe citizens would not feel any difference.