Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

I believe that anyone proclaiming people mass murderers should also provide sources, which irrefutably prove their claim.

From wikipedia:

On October 5, 1999, a bus filled with refugees was reportedly hit by a Russian tank shell, killing as many as 40 civilians and wounding several others.

On October 7, 1999, federal forces carried out a cluster bomb attack on the village of Elistanzhy in Vedensky District. Within several minutes 27 people were killed; among them only eight were men of "fighting age", meaning aged 14 to 60. In the next two weeks, 21 more died of their wounds.

On October 21, 1999, a series of Russian ballistic missile strikes on central Grozny killed at least 137 people, mostly civilians, and injured hundreds. The missiles hit the city's main marketplace, a maternity hospital and a mosque.
On October 24, 1999, seven children were killed and 14 maimed by a Russian tank attack in Novy Sharoy; an adult man was also killed.

On October 29, 1999, the Russian Air Force carried out a rocket attack on a large convoy of refugees who were using a "safe exit" route. Casualties were estimated at 50-100, among them several Red Cross workers, two journalists and many women and children.

On February 4, 2000, in an attempt to stop the Chechen retreat, Russian forces bombed the village of Katyr-Yurt, then a civilian convoy under white flags, killing at least 170 civilians, while many more were injured.

On February 9, 2000, a Russian tactical missile hit a crowd of people who had come to the local administration building in Shali, a town declared to be one of the "safe areas", to collect their pensions. The missile is estimated to have killed some 150 civilians, and was followed by an attack by combat helicopters causing further casualties. The Russian attack, which happened without any warning, was a response to infiltration of the town by a group of Chechen fighters who suffered few casualties.

I can maybe dig around in the sources they provided a bit if you like.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

If only back then Russia was sanctioned hard for all that crap

[Owlbread]

If only back then Russia was sanctioned hard for all that crap

They probably would have been if the "war on terror" thing hadn't kicked in. America under Bush, and to a certain extent even now, would overlook all kinds of suffering if it meant that perceived Islamic extremist forces could be defeated. Even now we've got idiots in America saying they're quite happy with the Chechen situation (corrupt Islamist dictatorship) as long as the Caucasus Emirate doesn't rear its ugly head.

As an example; Islam Karimov, President of Uzbekistan, has been the best friend of the British Government, the American Government and the Russian Government on various occasions throughout the last 10 years due to his importance as a "strategic ally" in the war on terror. He allows Americans to station their troops in his country, for one thing. This is in spite of the fact that he literally boils dissidents alive i.e. rips their fingernails out, smashes their knees/faces and puts them in a big vat of scalding hot water until their skin burns off/they die. He is possibly one of the most evil heads of state out there west of North Korea. Our governments are complicit in this in that we (possibly even now, I don't know) used to send Afghan POWs to Uzbekistan to be tortured by their government because torture is illegal in our countries.

At the moment Karimov is Putin's best pal, having seemingly decided that his alliance with America and Britain had run its course.

[Sergarr]

Uzbekistan stuff

So that's why half the street workers in Russia are Uzbek!

[Owlbread]

Uzbekistan stuff

So that's why half the street workers in Russia are Uzbek!

Yeah, the quality of life in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and other places is pretty bad and the migrant workers usually either want a better life in Russia, or want to provide for their families back home.

[MonkeyHead]

Russian theme combobreaker!

Here in the UK, UKIP are going strong still with one of their MEP's describing a Thai constituent as "a ting tong from somewhere".

[TD1]

Mr Munday said "ting tong" in Thai meant that a person was mad and the comment had come as "a bit of shock".

Read the article. It wasn't a racist remark, more an unconsidered one.

"I am devastated that I have caused hurt and apologise profusely to both Mr and Mrs Munday."

[MonkeyHead]

Oh come on... "Ting Tong"/"Ching Chong" is a long standing British insult for anyone from South East Asia or China. That would only be any kind of defence if the MEP in question had any knowledge of colloquial terms in Thai, and I am pretty confident that she does not. If it was not racist, why in hell would the MEP add the "from somewhere", clearly implying that their place of origin is a factor in the comment, hence xenophobic at best, racist at worst.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Mr Munday said "ting tong" in Thai meant that a person was mad and the comment had come as "a bit of shock".

Read the article. It wasn't a racist remark, more an unconsidered one.

"I am devastated that I have caused hurt and apologise profusely to both Mr and Mrs Munday."

That's some expert apologism

[TD1]

I have heard of Ching Chong, but not Ting Tong.

Your argument is based around you assuming she couldn't know what it meant, and that's the cusp of the matter. We don't know. All we do know is that she said something bad that came across as offensive, and shouldn't have been said.

Does apologising make it better? No. But at worst she said a politically incorrect thing in flippantly describing someone.

[MonkeyHead]

*Shrugs*

She apologised. I don't see what your problem with that is.

Mictlantecuhtli means your comment is "expert apologetics", not the MEP's apology - as in looking at something, and changing its meaning to suit some already held idea.

Her apologising does not change the fact that someone elected to lead a constituency in the EU parliament has shown themselves to be a xenophobe, possibly racist. That behaviour offends me, and probably offends a lot more people than it pleases.

Saying sorry after the fact does not magically make things better.

[TD1]

I have heard of Ching Chong, but not Ting Tong.

Your argument is based around you assuming she couldn't know what it meant, and that's the cusp of the matter. We don't know. All we do know is that she said something bad that came across as offensive, and shouldn't have been said.

Does apologising make it better? No. But at worst she said a politically incorrect thing in flippantly describing someone.

Somehow I edited the above post instead of posting a new one.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

But at worst she said a politically incorrect thing in flippantly describing someone.

Yeah, that's called racism.

[TD1]

It is?

Someone rewrite the dictionary from this
"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
To defining someone flippantly as "From somewhere".

[Owlbread]

Mr Munday said "ting tong" in Thai meant that a person was mad and the comment had come as "a bit of shock".

Read the article. It wasn't a racist remark, more an unconsidered one.

"I am devastated that I have caused hurt and apologise profusely to both Mr and Mrs Munday."

It's fortunate that that's all they think it means. In truth the "ting tong" thing in reference to European men having Thai wives is a reference to the sketch show Little Britain where, in one of the sketches, a very sleazy, desperate guy played by David Walliams had a Thai wife (played by Matt Lucas) called "Ting Tong" who revealed herself to be a ladyboy. Since that sketch, which was fairly popular in Britain at the time, it is common for East Asian wives of British men (particularly desperate ones) to be called Ting Tong disparagingly.

So not only is it a racist stereotype but it's also calling the guy sleazy and calling his wife a ladyboy.