Russian airstrikes in Syria

[New Werpland]

Wikipedia isn't biased. Just because it disagrees with the bullshit propaganda you get taught doesn't make it biased.

How classy. But well, to get to the point... Wikipedia claims to be neutral. At first Wikipedia was a English language phenomenon, this has changed and now wikipedia has versions in many languages. Callahan has studied content and perspectives by comparing articles about famous persons in the Polish and English editions of Wikipedia. The results of quantitative and qualitative content analyses reveal systematic differences related to the different cultures, histories, and values of Poland and the United States. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that wikipedia is not biased in any sense.

Well if you say it's so widespread, give an example of this bias.

[Imperial Valaran]

Also, bias in itself doesn't mean that it is 'wrong'.

You can be biased to a specific perspective, and still be right. Tarring something as biased without targeting its facts doesn't make the bias wrong.

Is Calimera II arguing that Wikipedia's bias calls into question its veracity in this specific example? Is Wikipedia wrong to say Russia invaded Georgia because it is 'biased'?

[New Werpland]

Also, bias in itself doesn't mean that it is 'wrong'.

You can be biased to a specific perspective, and still be right. Tarring something as biased without targeting its facts doesn't make the bias wrong.

Is Calimera II arguing that Wikipedia's bias calls into question its veracity in this specific example? Is Wikipedia wrong to say Russia invaded Georgia because it is 'biased'?

Well he claims that the Spanish version's article says different things, implying that people write different things according to what side of an issue they or their country might be on.

[Imperial Valaran]

Also, bias in itself doesn't mean that it is 'wrong'.

You can be biased to a specific perspective, and still be right. Tarring something as biased without targeting its facts doesn't make the bias wrong.

Is Calimera II arguing that Wikipedia's bias calls into question its veracity in this specific example? Is Wikipedia wrong to say Russia invaded Georgia because it is 'biased'?

Well he claims that the Spanish version's article says different things, implying that people write different things according to what side of an issue they or their country might be on.

ok.

But I don't see how that doesn't make what Russia did an 'intervention' and not an 'invasion', even if that is not directly translated as the same.

And the other issue on language related inconsistencies, is that there are a plurality of views in a nation, let alone other nations which use that language, so to say that there is a single consistent 'Spanish view' on what happened in 2008 makes no sense; is this the spanish view in Spain? Or somewhere else? Is it all one grand cultural entity, with a defined view on Georgia? And this is all articulated by Wikipedia of all places?

Its not really a credible argument, and more an intellectual laziness along the lines that 'wikipedia is biased so whatever they say can't be used for anything, and I will say this instead of actually debating the truth of the matter.'

A similar argument is usually made when defending Russian propaganda 'other media is biased too, so it can't be right', which is why I take particular issue with its usage anywhere else.

[Shofercia]

Also, bias in itself doesn't mean that it is 'wrong'.

You can be biased to a specific perspective, and still be right. Tarring something as biased without targeting its facts doesn't make the bias wrong.

Is Calimera II arguing that Wikipedia's bias calls into question its veracity in this specific example? Is Wikipedia wrong to say Russia invaded Georgia because it is 'biased'?

Since you mentioned that article, let me ask you this: when Al Qaeda brutally attacked the US on 9/11, that article is titled the War in Afghanistan; it's not titled the US-Afghan War, right?

However, when Georgia brutally attacking a civilian city with GRAD rocket launchers and Dana howitzers, and Russia responded, well, for the longest time it was called the Ossetian War; however, the anti-Russian Cabal, Wikipediametric, worked hard to change that title to the Russia-Georgia War. Then a mod, with Neo-Nazi leanings showed up, banned some people and changed the title. Bit hard to argue that's unbiased, eh?

The entire premise of Wikipedia is horseshit primarily when it comes to contentious articles on current events of historical revisionism. I can write a wonderful article on Prednestrovie, completely NPOV, (TransDneistr,) but why the fuck would I was hours laboring on something that I don't get paid for, while fighting off attacks from biased editors? Would anyone sane do that?

And thus on current and contentious articles with a political/propagandist slant, Wikipedia becomes a utterly pathetic shouting match on who can shout the loudest and can rally the most admins to their side. The winning side then gets to instill their utterly pathetic and completely useless propaganda into said article, while pretending that it's "oh, like so NPOV!"

Not to mention that for quite a while Wikipedia listed Russia as the attacker, despite the fact that Georgia attacked on August 7th, and the Russian came in on August 8th. Not that I expect the Wikipedians in that article to have a sense of sequential numbering. Oh, and in the very same article, someone tried blaming the Russians for taking Vladikavkaz. Perhaps that was Klichko.

Moving on from that, when it came to Ukraine, Wikipedia again tried to proudly move the line of the anti-Russian propagandist industry, by linking the Bloodless Annexation of Crimea to the Bloody Annexation of Austria. Apparently to some, killing people and not killing people are the same thing. And they edit Wikipedia too, which is why some articles on Wikipedia would most certainly be worthy of the title: "Britannica on the Bathroom Wall".

[Imperializt Russia]

In other news, another country has decided to send a bunch of young men to fight and kill and be killed by other men for reasons beyond their control.

Well as yet it actually hasn't, it's deployed air power which is currently doing the heavy lifting and moved ground forces in, in much the same manner as Western forces have.

[DBJ]

Russia is trying to prove that they are an alternative to the US and other western powers, capable of protecting their 'allies'. If the Assad regime falls it makes Russia look bad, especially if some of Assads opponents were backed by the west. It would be a big blow to their image and credibility as a superpower. Just like in Ukraine, it's the pathetic attempt of a fallen superpower to remain relevant.

[Imperializt Russia]

Russia is trying to prove that they are an alternative to the US and other western powers, capable of protecting their 'allies'. If the Assad regime falls it makes Russia look bad, especially if some of Assads opponents were backed by the west. It would be a big blow to their image and credibility as a superpower. Just like in Ukraine, it's the pathetic attempt of a fallen superpower to remain relevant.

Russia is relevant no matter how shit it becomes. Ownership of one of the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world secures this forevermore.

[Shofercia]

Russia has begun carrying out air strikes in Syria against opponents of President Bashar al-Assad.

The strikes reportedly hit rebel-controlled areas of Homs and Hama provinces, causing casualties.

The US says it was informed an hour before they took place.

Russian defence officials say aircraft targeted the Islamic State group, but an unnamed US official told Reuters that so far they did not appear to be targeting IS-held territory.

The upper house of the Russian parliament granted President Vladimir Putin permission to deploy the Russian air force in Syria.
The Russian defence ministry said the country's air force had targeted IS military equipment, communication facilities, arms depots, ammunition and fuel supplies.

Syrian opposition activists said Russian warplanes had hit towns including Zafaraneh, Rastan ands Talbiseh, resulting in the deaths of 36 people, a number of them children.

None of the areas targeted were controlled by IS, activists said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34399164

So, what implications does this have?

Not surprised in the least. Russia clearly is desperate to hold onto their last ally in the region. I wouldn't be surprised if they intervene on the ground in the near future.

Not that they'd admit to it when they did.

Implications? Syria's going to get stability within a year. At least a good part of it. And the Kurds are going to be able to finally have a good deal of autonomy.

Russia only wants its only ally in the east to remain standing.

It's a tad more complex than that.

And yet, they promised that their increased military presence was for the sole purpose of combating ISIS.

Pretty sure they didn't. They talked about an anti-ISIS coalition, but doesn't mean that Al Nusra's off the hook.

To be frank, Assad's a fucking asshole and I used to hope he'd be deposed, but considering the identities of the other major contenders for control over Syria...more power to Russia in this instance. Provided of course they ignore the Kurds, who aren't so much interested in overthrowing Assad as they are interested in everyone else stopping with the sacking of their fucking homeland.

Like, sorry. But I don't really see a credible alternative in the Syrian opposition anymore; unless I'm wrong and they've not been completely drowned out in the mass of other would-be demagogues and other assorted power-hungry factions.

[clusterfuck intensifies]

But no really I mean Russia does have a legit reason (allies) but like holy shit the situation in Syria getting out of control.

Look, if this is getting out of control then I don't know what your standard for "has never been in control for the last couple of years" is.

Reread Putin's UN Speech. Putin just forced Assad to give Kurds broad autonomy. The term that he used in Russian is "Opolchenia" and that's not a term that we, (Russians,) throw around unless we're sympathetic to your cause.

To be frank, Assad's a fucking asshole and I used to hope he'd be deposed, but considering the identities of the other major contenders for control over Syria...more power to Russia in this instance. Provided of course they ignore the Kurds, who aren't so much interested in overthrowing Assad as they are interested in everyone else stopping with the sacking of their fucking homeland.

Like, sorry. But I don't really see a credible alternative in the Syrian opposition anymore; unless I'm wrong and they've not been completely drowned out in the mass of other would-be demagogues and other assorted power-hungry factions.

The FSA is still together, as are a number of other credible opposition forces. We generally only hear about Al-Nusra and ISIS. God only knows if the non-radical opposition could cobble something out of the ashes of Syria after this mess, though.

All 4 of them?

Did hear that the strikes were supposedly against US-backed Syrian rebel forces (I assumed FSA, but they weren't mentioned by name) and not ISIS, but I heard that from Rush Limbaugh, so take it with a grain of salt.

Not really a surprising move either way. Russia wants to hold on to the buddy-boy in the Mideast and not see him toppled, whether it's by ISIS or by slightly-less-radical-than-ISIS-or-maybe-not-but-still-rather-clusterfucked-either-way rebels.

Edit: Quelle Surprise, there do seem to be claims/reports by the FSA they were hit by Russian airstrikes.

Time to drop of a truckload of FIM-92 Stinger's off and let nature take it's course.

And have the Russians reciprocate by supplying Igla missile launchers to Hezbollah. Wow, your plan would really be loved by Hezbollah. Got anymore plans? /sarcasm

I feel like the RAF is in danger of accidentally attacking the Russians or vice-versa. Oh, and I suppose 'Murica as well. But we Brits have bases on Cyprus, so that, like, swings this non-argument in my favour, right?

Russians and NATO agreed to give each other a heads up when they plan on flying missions, so, theoretically speaking, they shouldn't even be in the air at the same time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/opinion/thomas-friedman-syria-obama-and-putin.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Mr. Friedman put it best.

Wow, it's like a rerun of predictions that Russia won't win the Second Chechen War. Very entertaining. Been a while too, almost a decade.

If independent Scotland did what ISIS is doing... then yes, it would be ok.

You forget that it's not just ISIS and AL-Nusra that are fighting Assad but the FSA as well.

The Freely Slaughtered Alliance? I seem to recall a report about US wasting half a billion to train 4 guys.

Who would've thought when the US hit the reset button with Russia it was resetting to the proxy-war era?

ISIS are US proxies? You gotta lay off the cool aid man.

Still a million times better than any of the other forces involved in this conflict. Let's not forget that Assad is the only thing defending the religious minorities from wholesale genocide.

Is he now?

Yes, he is. Most of the minorities support Assad. The ones who can hold their own, like the Kurds, will be given broad autonomy, if that hasn't been the case already.

[Trumpostan]

2. Why, besides obviously wanting to keep more dictators in power, does Putin support Assad?

Putin doesn't have anything tangible to gain from propping up dictators, he has everything to gain from propping up regimes that support him. Which in this case means supporting dictators. The difference is slight, but important.

Dictators were the go-to buddy for the US in the Cold War too. On the strategic level, friendly dictators are yes-men with access to tank factories and oil.

Crimea gives the Russian Black Sea Fleet a useful home base at Sevastopol. Turkey is key because they control access to the Med. Syria is key because Tartus is a Russian-friendly port in the Med proper.
Whilst not optimal, with its access to the Med essentially bisected by the NATO-allied Turkey, the use of Crimea and Syria allows the possibility of encircling Turkey in a war and isolating its access and content with the rest of NATO.

What do you mean, "were"? Last time I checked, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf State monarchies are all dictatorships, so is Egypt (de facto) and a bunch of 'stans' in Central Asia where we are paying the local dictator to be 'loyal' to us.

Right now there's just so much hypocrisy going around.

"Russia cannot bomb the 'moderate rebels', but our ally Turkey can bomb the Kurds"
"Assad is a dictator who has to go, the Saudi king is a dictator who is just the greatest fella around the place, and so is Sisi in Egypt"

W's illegal war is the gift that just keeps on giving... Afghanistan is flaring up again, Iraq has been a mess from the moment Saddam's government fell, the instability spilled over into Syria. What a lineup a prospective Nuremberg-style tribunal could have: W, Cheney, Bremer, Rumsfeld, Rice, Assad, al-Baghdadi, Putin... the list just keeps on growing.

[Shofercia]

some idiot nottnott changed the FSA page when I added information to it wtf

I'm reporting you to the mods.

For what? There's no rule against NSGers fucking with Wikipedia.

I was adding stuff to make it truer (if thats a word)

Stephen Colbert would love to have a word with you.

Wikiality.

Have you ever thought of of WHAT IF! assad Dies?

See Libya Scenario.

Exactly.

And to think we might have avoided all this….

We could have either by not invading Iraq or by bombing Syria earlier.

Or by listening to some Finnish dude named Ahntissari.

Usually in the winner's chair.

I mean, that wasn't really where Russia ended up after the last time they tried to support an allied regime in the cultural Middle East against religious rebels that may or may not have had Western support...

I was referring to Russia's overall military record, not to the Brezhnev-Gorbachev idiocy of misconducting the Afghanistan War. If they let the military fight, Soviets would've won, but there was too much intervention from Moscow. On the other hand, Putin lets the military fight.

The UN and the African Union couldn't handle Somalia either, but I guess it's all Bill Clinton's fault now.

Reminds me of a show tune i wrote. Blame the west/Americans.

Don't blame Yourself, blame the west! Blame the West! Blame the West! Poor economy? Blame the west for your ills! The Populace wants more civil liberties, don't blame your shitty rule; BLAME THE WEST! You lost a arms race and now you lost your status? Don't blame your shitty leaders or poor planning, BLAME THE WEST!

I seem to recall blaming Putin for violating Civil Rights. But yes, amazingly enough I blamed those who created the US housing bubble, for creating the US housing bubble. Complex stuff.

So, unlike most here, I've actually seen a part of the strategy that's out on RuNet. I'll be surprised if Russia doesn't stabilize Syria within a year. Good news for NSG - Kurds will finally stop being fucked over. Unless they're in Turkey.

if the west cant solve this problem, what makes you think that the Russian military can?

All it is a simple walk through Turkey and up the Caucasus and there you are, Russia. Far simpler then risking flying to the US, And all it takes is for some ISIS Fuckwit top dog to call a Fatwa on Russia to make it happen.

Because NATO didn't have the level of commitment and Americans have Iraq War Fatigue. Morale is a factor. And the walk that you describe is anything but simple.

So, unlike most here, I've actually seen a part of the strategy that's out on RuNet. I'll be surprised if Russia doesn't stabilize Syria within a year. Good news for NSG - Kurds will finally stop being fucked over. Unless they're in Turkey.

Then you will be surprised. USA has conducted thousands of air strikes so far meanwhile Russia did it's first (and not even against ISIS). Russia needs to bring massive amounts of ground troops to stabilize Syria and I doubt they will do that.

Not to mention that Russia doesn't even have as good air strike capabilities as USA.

Russia needs to what? What's wrong with Iranian or Kurdish soldiers?

We shall see. I'm currently laughing at that post. A year from now it'll be most of NSG.

Year on you will see that your predictions proved to be wrong.

Going to save this one.

If only Reagan were here...

He'd have sent the rebels some anti-aircraft missiles to kill some Russians.

Another Hezbollah fan? How many of you guys are on NSG?

While both sides are disgusting murderers, Assad is undeniably the one that is preferable. I'd prefer a secular dictator over a ultraconservative dictator, myself.

Some bleeding hearts here will undeniably whine "how about no dictators at all", of course, but I prefer dismissing them as people disconnected from the grim reality of the Middle-East. Think of Warhammer 40K and change all references to Warhammer with the word "Middle-East". Do you think democracy can function in Syria without any radical restructuring? Do you think that any one of those opposition groups who have the slightest chance of power against Assad will be a peace-shitting, rainbow-puking vortex of love and friendship?

Like I said, complete naivety and Western liberalism. Buck the fuck up and accept that Syria, or the Middle-East, won't be getting any better. Especially by not your hand.

Thank you.

Finally someone who speaks some sense.

Your Warhammer 40K comparison is very apt. I swear, some of these bleeding-heart liberals would think it a good idea to promote democracy on Cadia if they had the chance. I can see the arguments now: "Why do we have to choose between Chaos or the Imperium? Why can't we have freedom and blah blah blah?"

I'll take the Imperium, thank you very much.

The Warhammer Expansion: Syria!

[Imperializt Russia]

Putin doesn't have anything tangible to gain from propping up dictators, he has everything to gain from propping up regimes that support him. Which in this case means supporting dictators. The difference is slight, but important.

Dictators were the go-to buddy for the US in the Cold War too. On the strategic level, friendly dictators are yes-men with access to tank factories and oil.

Crimea gives the Russian Black Sea Fleet a useful home base at Sevastopol. Turkey is key because they control access to the Med. Syria is key because Tartus is a Russian-friendly port in the Med proper.
Whilst not optimal, with its access to the Med essentially bisected by the NATO-allied Turkey, the use of Crimea and Syria allows the possibility of encircling Turkey in a war and isolating its access and content with the rest of NATO.

What do you mean, "were"? Last time I checked, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf State monarchies are all dictatorships, so is Egypt (de facto) and a bunch of 'stans' in Central Asia where we are paying the local dictator to be 'loyal' to us.

There are now less of them. It's no longer politically acceptable to curry dictators of too harsh a vein unless they have things to offer the west. Oil, for obvious example.
It's also no longer acceptable to prop them or install them, neither of which the west really has done. In 1980, "regime change" meant supporting a rebel group and installing a pro-US dictator and not giving a shit what they did to the people as long as they occasionally threw some reds into the grinder too. Now it means supporting a rebel group and installing an ostensibly pro-US democracy because to most people, that's OK now.

[Shofercia]

So, unlike most here, I've actually seen a part of the strategy that's out on RuNet. I'll be surprised if Russia doesn't stabilize Syria within a year. Good news for NSG - Kurds will finally stop being fucked over. Unless they're in Turkey.

I have too, and I concur. Still seems a bit risky, but when isn't an intervention risky?

Thank you

This Russian action puts USA in tough spot also because they have allies who want to work together with Russia and allies who don't. That's quite a dilemma.

The US put US in a tough spot when US supported the Arab Spring.

So why emphasize the legality of it? Unless Russia has done something in the past that wasn't exactly kosher according to international law.

Because there will always be Russophobia that needs to be addressed head on.

Bingo!

So, unlike most here, I've actually seen a part of the strategy that's out on RuNet. I'll be surprised if Russia doesn't stabilize Syria within a year. Good news for NSG - Kurds will finally stop being fucked over. Unless they're in Turkey.

Unless they decide to stand in Assad's way.

That'll depend on where they're standing, and I doubt the Kurds would go for a massive land grab. They're not idiots.

Somehow I feel this thread is missing something... hmmm...

Oh yes! A THEME SONG!

Admit it: It's so bad it's good. They did miss a golden opportunity to have Putin ride in on a bear at the end, though. A flying bear. Yeah.

I'll show myself out now.

Please do.

Oh my, how charming!

Russia is saving Europe and Middle East from American destruction. ISIS was created by the "moderate Syrian opposition" which was subsidosed by America. Of course the Americans tried to denied that the "moderate opposition" was in fact bloodthisty islamists that behead infidels. American imperialism is destroying the world.

Putin's done a good job on you, hasn't he?

On his RP nation?

Nope, Russia intervened.
Yes there's a difference between the two, if the USSR would actually invade Afghanistan they would have done things quiet differently.

So uh Russia intervened in Georgia?

Russia counterattacked in Georgia. If you wish to engage me on this topic, you might want to ask other NSGers how it went for them.

Because there will always be Russophobia that needs to be addressed head on.

Ah, yes. The buzzword that keeps being used for criticisms of Russian actions internationally.

Criticize intelligently and we won't have to use it.

Russia has come out to be more desperate for power than I thought.

I think Russia's declining demographics, and the West chipping away at what Russia considers its land in Ukraine, the Caucasus etc has really galvanized Putin to do something.

Russia's declining demographics? If by declining you mean growing beyond the UN's wildest predictions, then yes, declining...

Russia's population has recently returned to growth, I don't think it's the demographic issue.

Has it? Native growth, or immigration from Central Asia? It was sharply decreasing as soon as the late 2000s.

Oh FFS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... e-gks.ru-4

(Note how that's copy pasta, well sourced, and not contentious)

Russia is trying to prove that they are an alternative to the US and other western powers, capable of protecting their 'allies'. If the Assad regime falls it makes Russia look bad, especially if some of Assads opponents were backed by the west. It would be a big blow to their image and credibility as a superpower. Just like in Ukraine, it's the pathetic attempt of a fallen superpower to remain relevant.

Considering how desperate the West is whilst challenging Russia in Ukraine, it's actually not pathetic.

[Valaran]

Also, bias in itself doesn't mean that it is 'wrong'.

You can be biased to a specific perspective, and still be right. Tarring something as biased without targeting its facts doesn't make the bias wrong.

Is Calimera II arguing that Wikipedia's bias calls into question its veracity in this specific example? Is Wikipedia wrong to say Russia invaded Georgia because it is 'biased'?

Since you mentioned that article, let me ask you this: when Al Qaeda brutally attacked the US on 9/11, that article is titled the War in Afghanistan; it's not titled the US-Afghan War, right?

However, when Georgia brutally attacking a civilian city with GRAD rocket launchers and Dana howitzers, and Russia responded, well, for the longest time it was called the Ossetian War; however, the anti-Russian Cabal, Wikipediametric, worked hard to change that title to the Russia-Georgia War. Then a mod, with Neo-Nazi leanings showed up, banned some people and changed the title. Bit hard to argue that's unbiased, eh?

The entire premise of Wikipedia is horseshit primarily when it comes to contentious articles on current events of historical revisionism. I can write a wonderful article on Prednestrovie, completely NPOV, (TransDneistr,) but why the fuck would I was hours laboring on something that I don't get paid for, while fighting off attacks from biased editors? Would anyone sane do that?

And thus on current and contentious articles with a political/propagandist slant, Wikipedia becomes a utterly pathetic shouting match on who can shout the loudest and can rally the most admins to their side. The winning side then gets to instill their utterly pathetic and completely useless propaganda into said article, while pretending that it's "oh, like so NPOV!"

Not to mention that for quite a while Wikipedia listed Russia as the attacker, despite the fact that Georgia attacked on August 7th, and the Russian came in on August 8th. Not that I expect the Wikipedians in that article to have a sense of sequential numbering. Oh, and in the very same article, someone tried blaming the Russians for taking Vladikavkaz. Perhaps that was Klichko.

Moving on from that, when it came to Ukraine, Wikipedia again tried to proudly move the line of the anti-Russian propagandist industry, by linking the Bloodless Annexation of Crimea to the Bloody Annexation of Austria. Apparently to some, killing people and not killing people are the same thing. And they edit Wikipedia too, which is why some articles on Wikipedia would most certainly be worthy of the title: "Britannica on the Bathroom Wall".

Sorry, was there a point here, other than the fact you can apparently write wonderful articles?

I don't expect us to agree on anything other than Kurdish autonomy. Your incoherency here (somehow trying to link half-a-dozen separate events in an anti-western narrative concerning wikipedia's grand anti-Russianess surprisingly comes across as muddled instead of damning) rather adds to that impression. I would have been happy to agree to disagree, but since you put so much passion here (in lieu of valid points), I felt compelled to post in return.

Wikipedia's system of bias is no surprise. But it goes both ways, and it doesn't discredit the fact that there was a Russian military action in Georgia (though I have never heard of it being called the Ossetia war; I wonder on how widespread that actually was). I made no comment on whether it was provoked, just the fact that it occurred, so much of this spirited mess is rather unnecessary. Not that this will stop you, I have no doubt.

Though I shall eagerly the coming 'stabilisation of Syria within a year' due to Russian military action that you predict. I have to admit, I did not expect you to believe your own propaganda, so kudos for boldness. Less kudos for anything else.
inb4 "oh it was obviously the strikes that caused a political deal"

[Imperializt Russia]

For the record in the UK we tended to call it the South Ossetia war, as was reflected in its wikipedia title.

[The balkens]

For the record in the UK we tended to call it the South Ossetia war, as was reflected in its wikipedia title.

I tend to refer as "Russia swings its dick and hits another Slavic Man in the face."

Its funny that way, because implications.

[Imperial Valaran]

For the record in the UK we tended to call it the South Ossetia war, as was reflected in its wikipedia title.

I hear variations, though the most common is just the Russo-Georgian conflict.

[Calimera II]

Also, bias in itself doesn't mean that it is 'wrong'.

You can be biased to a specific perspective, and still be right. Tarring something as biased without targeting its facts doesn't make the bias wrong.

Is Calimera II arguing that Wikipedia's bias calls into question its veracity in this specific example? Is Wikipedia wrong to say Russia invaded Georgia because it is 'biased'?

Well he claims that the Spanish version's article says different things, implying that people write different things according to what side of an issue they or their country might be on.

This.

And I was talking about Wikipedia in a 'general way.' I was not focussing on the aforementioned topic.

[New Werpland]

So uh Russia intervened in Georgia?

Russia counterattacked in Georgia. If you wish to engage me on this topic, you might want to ask other NSGers how it went for them.

Russia counterattacked in Georgia after their "peacekeepers" successfully provoked a response. Or was supplying Ossetian separatists, and beating up police officers part of their job?

I think Russia's declining demographics, and the West chipping away at what Russia considers its land in Ukraine, the Caucasus etc has really galvanized Putin to do something.

Russia's declining demographics? If by declining you mean growing beyond the UN's wildest predictions, then yes, declining...

Immigration from Russia certainly has increased, mostly among those who are educated.

[Chossudovsky]

Since you mentioned that article, let me ask you this: when Al Qaeda brutally attacked the US on 9/11, that article is titled the War in Afghanistan; it's not titled the US-Afghan War, right?

However, when Georgia brutally attacking a civilian city with GRAD rocket launchers and Dana howitzers, and Russia responded, well, for the longest time it was called the Ossetian War; however, the anti-Russian Cabal, Wikipediametric, worked hard to change that title to the Russia-Georgia War. Then a mod, with Neo-Nazi leanings showed up, banned some people and changed the title. Bit hard to argue that's unbiased, eh?

The entire premise of Wikipedia is horseshit primarily when it comes to contentious articles on current events of historical revisionism. I can write a wonderful article on Prednestrovie, completely NPOV, (TransDneistr,) but why the fuck would I was hours laboring on something that I don't get paid for, while fighting off attacks from biased editors? Would anyone sane do that?

And thus on current and contentious articles with a political/propagandist slant, Wikipedia becomes a utterly pathetic shouting match on who can shout the loudest and can rally the most admins to their side. The winning side then gets to instill their utterly pathetic and completely useless propaganda into said article, while pretending that it's "oh, like so NPOV!"

Not to mention that for quite a while Wikipedia listed Russia as the attacker, despite the fact that Georgia attacked on August 7th, and the Russian came in on August 8th. Not that I expect the Wikipedians in that article to have a sense of sequential numbering. Oh, and in the very same article, someone tried blaming the Russians for taking Vladikavkaz. Perhaps that was Klichko.

Moving on from that, when it came to Ukraine, Wikipedia again tried to proudly move the line of the anti-Russian propagandist industry, by linking the Bloodless Annexation of Crimea to the Bloody Annexation of Austria. Apparently to some, killing people and not killing people are the same thing. And they edit Wikipedia too, which is why some articles on Wikipedia would most certainly be worthy of the title: "Britannica on the Bathroom Wall".

Sorry, was there a point here, other than the fact you can apparently write wonderful articles?

I don't expect us to agree on anything other than Kurdish autonomy. Your incoherency here (somehow trying to link half-a-dozen separate events in an anti-western narrative concerning wikipedia's grand anti-Russianess surprisingly comes across as muddled instead of damning) rather adds to that impression. I would have been happy to agree to disagree, but since you put so much passion here (in lieu of valid points), I felt compelled to post in return.

Wikipedia's system of bias is no surprise. But it goes both ways, and it doesn't discredit the fact that there was a Russian military action in Georgia (though I have never heard of it being called the Ossetia war; I wonder on how widespread that actually was). I made no comment on whether it was provoked, just the fact that it occurred, so much of this spirited mess is rather unnecessary. Not that this will stop you, I have no doubt.

Though I shall eagerly the coming 'stabilisation of Syria within a year' due to Russian military action that you predict. I have to admit, I did not expect you to believe your own propaganda, so kudos for boldness. Less kudos for anything else.
inb4 "oh it was obviously the strikes that caused a political deal"

Wikipedia's anti-Russian bias, much like the anti-Russian bias prevalent in Western media, does not run both ways but is in fact a part of a massive effort by government and business to create a false impression in the minds of people living in the west about the motives of the Russian state. In South Ossetia, in Ukraine and in Syria the Russian government's sole motive is the protection of minorities faced with extermination by Western puppets - whether illegitimate US installed regimes in Georgia and Ukraine, or US created terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Nusra - and yet to hear the media report on these missions you would think that Russia is somehow the aggressor.

Russia counterattacked in Georgia. If you wish to engage me on this topic, you might want to ask other NSGers how it went for them.

Russia counterattacked in Georgia after their "peacekeepers" successfully provoked a response. Or was supplying Ossetian separatists, and beating up police officers part of their job?

Russia's declining demographics? If by declining you mean growing beyond the UN's wildest predictions, then yes, declining...

Immigration from Russia certainly has increased, mostly among those who are educated.

Actually, the US provoked Russia by installing a government in Georgia against the wishes of the Georgian people then supplying weapons to this government for the sole purpose of a military assault against Russia and its allies.

As for the demographics, you are a bit late. The Russian government has already fixed the harm caused by the leaders foisted on Russia in the 1990s by the US.

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

I find it funny that everyone jumps on the "ebul Russians" bandwagon, ignoring the recent U.S. airstrike that struck a hospital, killing several Doctors Without Borders workers, among others. Last time I checked, Russia wasn't targeting hospitals in their airstrikes.

And now, here comes the "but 'Murica killed dem terruriztz" crowd even though no terrorists were killed in the airstrike, or were even in the area.

[Uxupox]

Sorry, was there a point here, other than the fact you can apparently write wonderful articles?

I don't expect us to agree on anything other than Kurdish autonomy. Your incoherency here (somehow trying to link half-a-dozen separate events in an anti-western narrative concerning wikipedia's grand anti-Russianess surprisingly comes across as muddled instead of damning) rather adds to that impression. I would have been happy to agree to disagree, but since you put so much passion here (in lieu of valid points), I felt compelled to post in return.

Wikipedia's system of bias is no surprise. But it goes both ways, and it doesn't discredit the fact that there was a Russian military action in Georgia (though I have never heard of it being called the Ossetia war; I wonder on how widespread that actually was). I made no comment on whether it was provoked, just the fact that it occurred, so much of this spirited mess is rather unnecessary. Not that this will stop you, I have no doubt.

Though I shall eagerly the coming 'stabilisation of Syria within a year' due to Russian military action that you predict. I have to admit, I did not expect you to believe your own propaganda, so kudos for boldness. Less kudos for anything else.
inb4 "oh it was obviously the strikes that caused a political deal"

Wikipedia's anti-Russian bias, much like the anti-Russian bias prevalent in Western media, does not run both ways but is in fact a part of a massive effort by government and business to create a false impression in the minds of people living in the west about the motives of the Russian state. In South Ossetia, in Ukraine and in Syria the Russian government's sole motive is the protection of minorities faced with extermination by Western puppets - whether illegitimate US installed regimes in Georgia and Ukraine, or US created terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Nusra - and yet to hear the media report on these missions you would think that Russia is somehow the aggressor.

Russia counterattacked in Georgia after their "peacekeepers" successfully provoked a response. Or was supplying Ossetian separatists, and beating up police officers part of their job?


Immigration from Russia certainly has increased, mostly among those who are educated.

Actually, the US provoked Russia by installing a government in Georgia against the wishes of the Georgian people then supplying weapons to this government for the sole purpose of a military assault against Russia and its allies.

As for the demographics, you are a bit late. The Russian government has already fixed the harm caused by the leaders foisted on Russia in the 1990s by the US.

What? Foisted by the US on Russia? Didn't know that the US dictated the Russian interior ministry. Also can I get a citation on how exactly did the US install a government in Georgia.

I find it funny that everyone jumps on the "ebul Russians" bandwagon, ignoring the recent U.S. airstrike that struck a hospital, killing several Doctors Without Borders workers, among others. Last time I checked, Russia wasn't targeting hospitals in their airstrikes.

And now, here comes the "but 'Murica killed dem terruriztz" crowd even though no terrorists were killed in the airstrike, or were even in the area.

At least the Americans man up to their mistakes and admit them. I'm pretty sure they didn't target the hospital deliberately as supposedly a Taliban encampment was nearby. Though I still haven't heard jack shit from the Russians concerning the MH17 plane crash.

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

What? Foisted by the US on Russia? Didn't know that the US dictated the Russian interior ministry. Also can I get a citation on how exactly did the US install a government in Georgia.

That's because 'Murica controls the world. *nod*

How can he bring up a citation if the action in question never happened?

I find it funny that everyone jumps on the "ebul Russians" bandwagon, ignoring the recent U.S. airstrike that struck a hospital, killing several Doctors Without Borders workers, among others. Last time I checked, Russia wasn't targeting hospitals in their airstrikes.

And now, here comes the "but 'Murica killed dem terruriztz" crowd even though no terrorists were killed in the airstrike, or were even in the area.

At least the Americans man up to their mistakes and admit them. I'm pretty sure they didn't target the hospital deliberately as supposedly a Taliban encampment was nearby. Though I still haven't heard jack shit from the Russians concerning the MH17 plane crash.

"We're sorry about bombing you. Here, we'll send in soldiers to protect you" *later on we hear that the whole village was slaughtered by US soldiers because "hunting terruriztz"*

Still waiting for that "proof" that Russia itself launched a missile at the plane.
Also:

They say the "most plausible explanation" for the shooting down of the plane was that rebels mistook it for another aircraft.

[Uxupox]

What? Foisted by the US on Russia? Didn't know that the US dictated the Russian interior ministry. Also can I get a citation on how exactly did the US install a government in Georgia.

That's because 'Murica controls the world. *nod*

How can he bring up a citation if the action in question never happened?

Because that's factual evidence missing. Can't take you seriously if you do not have the evidence to back it up.

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

That's because 'Murica controls the world. *nod*

How can he bring up a citation if the action in question never happened?

Because that's factual evidence missing. Can't take you seriously if you do not have the evidence to back it up.

To be fair, shit-loaded "arguments" typically lack evidence because, well, it's shit-loaded.