F-22 (Raptor) attacked a Russian attack aircrafts Su-25

Fair enough, you just seem to be spreading the same conspiracy theories over and over which makes it out to look like the US is the big bad guy that all the Russians parrot over and over.

You have the right to do anything you would like, but it is just a silly comment for the conspiracy theorists to on one hand, call the US government inept and stupid and that of making all the wrong decisions. Then on the other hand, they are able to pull off what would be the single most interact false flag operation of all time.

Then you decide to go off on some tangent about "Who are you to deny me the right..." ... lol uh what? When did I deny you the right to do anything? I just said you were wrong, you are more than welcome to type out your beliefs and be wrong all you want, I will just call you out on it.

So with that in mind, who are you to tell me that I don't have the right to call you an anti-US conspiracy theorist?

The part about not dragging us into war I definitely agree with, my Russian friends mostly think that Putin is an idiot but that he is doing some good things for Russia in that he is showing that the country has power again. They are saying however that they are getting more and more tired of him, so when I hear stories of social unrest then talk to my Russian friends about it, I am not surprised.

 

I try not to emphasize the views which don't have serious grounds. And yes I have to repeat again that I don't have a serious and direct evidence that 9-11 was planned and performed by American leaders for their own profits.

I see no contradictions in this very statement. First of all I don't regard the 9/11 as the most complicated project. I can imagine 1000 of situation which won't require any serious mental strength to plan such a thing. I would tell one hypothetic option which looks quite real to me.
- The guys look for a casus belli to start war in ME.
- The guys learn that some crazy fanatics are planning an attack like 9/11.
- The guys do nothing! They tell to the people in the basic level who discovered the plans that the information doesn't look serious and simply wait.
-9/11 happens and is used as casus belli...
-PROFIT!!!
Does it make the guys in US government inapt and stupid? I would say - yes. Does it make them being able to pull off the attack? I would say - yes.

It might sounded rude just because I possibly put it the wrong way. It wasn't personal. It was something about the rights, liberties, values etc.

I am the man who just refused to behave this way. I talked to a different guy, who is obviously driven by secret stories, most of which cannot be true just because they deny each other. I could call him 'conspiracy theorist'. I didn't. I wrote that he has the right to think so and I see the reason that the US leadership benefited from 9/11. Somewhat. But having no 100% evidence I refused to believe in it. Why didn't you make such a thing yourself?

Being tired of a leader is natural. Especially if the leader stays in power for a long time. I don't know the actual reason why your friends say these things. But of what I see around the 90% support of Putin certainly is real. It is true. Try to analyse what your friends are saying. If they say that they voted (in a context of a speech about liberties, rights and democracy not connected to Putin) - compare what they say about Putin. It might happen that they themselves vote for him... I haven't voted for the first 2 Putin's elections. I couldn't find any candidate of mine. Now is different.

 

Indeed. There should be no bigotry in the term "conspiracy theory", but unfortunately there is. There are conspiracy facts and conspiracy theories and both should have a respected place in our society and media.

Besides this, as I'm sure you know, there's a very long history of nations using false flag attacks to start wars or create the necessary social sympathy to pass laws that would not otherwise have a chance of being allowed.

C'est la vie, I suppose.

 

They're general observations by Jung and these influences can change or modify throughout ones life.

Oddly enough, the middle ground is the most difficult of all to achieve (ain't it always so), as it requires being psychologically torn between opposing forces in a tension of opposites. It's a terrible thing to endure.

I could go on, but why bore you or anyone else with such esoteric ideas...

 

Oui, c'est-ca.

Religions and beliefs, falsified witnesses of financial and even family crimes have been excuses for war long before the history of Russia and the US taken together. The very mechanism of counteraction of elite and the people has had some elements of lie. Hitler himself with all the undisputable evil he had - used the false flag attacks and false excuses for every aggression of his. Even to justify the murder of jewish women and innocent kids Hitler had a long story adopted by germans (not the very worst of nations IMHO) quite easily.

I would agree that the case of 9/11 was used by American leadership. That is no doubt. That is too obvious. This is a fact. All the aggressive policies of the USA were justified by this terrorist attack. But... I don't see and have never seen any 100% direct evidence against any American politician for setting this attack. And if I start to blame now the whole state and even nation - what would make me different of those who attack Russia, Russians for every laughable case? If I do so, if I think so, I would be the same with those who performed this attack.

 

Agreed. Lumping all people in a nation together as one is not only stupid but also tragic and is so often a repeated that it makes one shudder in despair. It derives from the latent tribal instincts in man that educationalists thought would would be overcome by rationality. But it's too deeply ingrained a devil to be driven out by that alone.

 

Lets just part as friends War between these two nations is unwinnable anyway since it will quickly resort in a nuclear exchange.

 

I agree

 

I said Afghanistan gave safe haven to the people who did the attacks, not that Afghanistan participated.

Why did we attack Iraq? Who the hell knows? I can't imagine what Bush thought he could or would accomplish.

 

The terrorists in question, Al Quaida were the mercenary force propping up the Taliban. Their fighting elite. Without them the Taliban could not keep power.
To give them up was to die.

 

Who are "the same guys" you're talking about?

 

I didn't say Afghanistan was involved.

 

You didn't. It was American government which started war in October 2001 in Afghanistan.

 

Pseudo-Islamic terrorists. The soviet idology was purely atheist, Marxist. And the movement which divided afghani society was based on religious traditional values slightly modified to make the most damage possible to soviet army.

 

Muslims have been divided long ago and there have been few times in history when different muslim countries managed to unite for something or against something. The structure of theirs is quite abstract. So they cannot rule themselves. Elite status of Al Qayeda is also debatable. The money? Yes, if we talk about before ISIS times. Terrorism involvance? Yes. But that doesn't mean an elite status to me. Every truck driver is able to make a terrorist attack.

 

Afghanistan is not able to give a safe haven to anyone since 1978.

 

Not elite compared to your military or mine, but elite compared to the Taliban military or the military of the Northern Alliance or any other fighting force in Afghanistan during that time.
Which was basically a time of ongoing protracted civil war/feudalism.

A brigade sized unit of men, orgsanised, equipped, motivated, successful.
A mercenary army that had dramatically tipped the balance of power in Afghanistan in favour of the Taliban.
I don't think they used terror tactics. I don't think they needed to.


If Karzai had trouble with a local warlord that he could not manage, he went to the Brits or the Yanks and got them to take that warlord out for him.
If the Taliban had problems with a local warlord they could not handle, they went to Al Quaeda for the same.

 

Yes. Something like the biggest mafia, which can be confused with a state in times of weak law. For me the word 'elite' is close to 'the best'. But in this case it is the side with least self-restrictions. And for me it is close to 'the worst'. But in general I agree with everything. This was just an important detail to me. The meaning of words changes the way the people think. Sometimes this difference swaps the understading between the goodness and the evil. This is why I feel sometimes the importance of small things.

 

The Taliban government gave safe haven to the WTC terrorists. Deal with it.

 

Total nonsense.

 

Can You send your daughter (sister, mother, son... - someone who cannot protect himself by force and is important to you) to Afghanistan and safely return her\him from Afghanistan now? Could you do it 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 1990? 1980? If yes - give me an example. If not than you have different view of nonsense than me.

 

1. Taliban government has never been able to control anything with law and state structures. They are bad. But you can't blame them for 'giving a safe haven' to anyone. They never did. The never could.
2. OK. Have you ever thought of who could be hiding in Afghanistan? The guys who were in planes died. The guys who financed it performed it from the territory of different state. Not Afghanistan. KSA. Why didn't US attack KSA for financing the terrorist attack?

 

Right ... "all the fake news that is fit to print" does not include items that might damage the various necessary illusions.

 

What bad guys ? Stop and think for a moment rather than ingesting the daily cacophony of nonsense fed to the raging masses by the MSM to keep the money pouring into the military industrial complex.

The reality is that the massive military spending is one of the major factors contributing the weakening of our long term security. Full Stop.

In 2000 Total Military Spending was 300 Billion. After 8 years of Bush it increased to 900 Billion and went over 1 Trillion under Obama.

Had we maintained 2000 spending levels (increasing with inflation) we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to infrastructure, technology and ramping up our economy to compete in the third millennium. Instead we threw this money down the toilet on needless wars which had no return on investment in order to enrich the international financiers that run the Establishment (Political elite and deep state bureaucracy)

Interest on our debt is 450 Billion/year x 16 years and you can put another 7 Trillion on to the above total.

We can not attack the Russian homeland and they cannot attack us - without completely annihilating both. Both have the ability to wipe each other off the map numerous times.

There is no massive "enemy" massing at our gates. We have to give our enemies arms ( Al Qaeda, ISIS) so that they can do enough damage in other nations to create enough fear to justify the massive military spend. Large amounts of resources and propaganda are engaged to maintain this "necessary illusion". The international financiers own most of the MSM as well.

The vast majority of our equipment has nothing to do. ... why ? because there is not much to do. One aircraft carrier group has more than enough firepower to deal with any conflict ... perhaps 2 at most. We have 20.

The reality is that these floating cities of metal are obsolete against a modern military power such as Russia - and arguably china - if not already it will be so in the near further. This is due to advances in anti ship missiles - for which we currently have no defense.

The tragedy is that this has been the case since the mid 90's when Russia introduced the Sunburn anti ship missile. This is a super-sonic cruise missile that skims along the ocean. The ship does not see it until it breaks the horizon at which point the ship has 45-50 seconds to react. At the time we had no defense and our missile technology was more than a decade behind.

The writing was on the wall. The Sunburn is old technology. The newer versions go much faster, are stealthy, and they think - conducting evasive maneuvers prior to impact. Reaction time has been reduced to 25-30 seconds .. and we still have no defense.

Russia, India and China have been working together on this missile technology. The Indian version is called the Brahmos.

When the wall fell Russia realized it could not compete with the US plane for plane, ship for ship. Instead it focused in niche technologies such as missile and electronic warfare. You can build a whole lot of missiles (at 1 million a pop) for the cost of a 10 Billion dollar aircraft carrier.

The global chessboard has changed. Military is no longer the strongest piece on the board because of nukes. Economy is the strongest.
Instead of focusing on our economy we have given away our advantage by pretending that military is the strongest piece on the board.

This is reality. I can do the history lesson if you like but historical fact is that technological innovation leads to military superiority which leads to economic hegemony. Technology then spreads and from that point on the cost of projecting power increases with time ... to the point where the military/economic empire goes bankrupt.

This is what happened to the Roman Empire. This is that happened to the British Empire. Now it is happening to us.

 

That is as false as possible. What actually happened? Two USA F-22s came so close to the SU-25s they fired flares. Had they fired weapons both Su-25s would have gone down in flames. F-22s "win." In response, with the F-22s so close the Su-25s pursued collision with the F-22s, both which successfully avoided that attempt.

That is the TRUE story.