If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Since things were so rosy under Communism.
actually it's reckoned he'll put in a weak leader for the enxt 4 years then run again as a fresh preisdent
>the point
Not allowed by the Constitution but hey ho.
And you really believe anything the BBC says? I honestly thought you were smarter than that. Is there any reason why, at any given time, on the BBC website there are at least 5 anti-Russia stories? Have you ever been to Russia and seen these 'racist problems' at first hand? Thought not.
do you realy believe putins boys are dumb enough to be so obvious?
The BBC were covering a report by Amnesty International. I do accept that the BBC is not entirely impartial, I'm not entirely familiar with this 'anti-Russia' stance although I have noticed that on other issues their journalists can display a pretty clear agenda.
I haven't been to Russia but I hope to visit fairly soon in my gap year...thinking of doing the Mongol Rally with some mates.
Very good point. Just like the murder of Pope John Paul I which apparently was a KGB job.
The BBC's anti-Russia stance sometimes verges on horrific. There is never anything positive that is ever reported about that country. It's disgusting but done so cleverly that most people believe it more than the old American Cold War propaganda.
Surely you mean the shooting of Joh Paul II - the assassination is put down to the mafia and is supposed to be related to the Banking system...
Wasn't that the Mafia? They did the Pope, they did the Banker...the did EVERYONE...Damn the Godfather and them Corleone's!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4767652.stm
Investigation blamed the KGB, but who knows?
As for the latest killing ofLitvinenko, again who knows? The Telegraph has 8 different possibilities
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/27/nspy127.xml
Yup sorry my bad. Watched a program on the history of the KGB with Roger Moore. Though one of the last people who saw John Paul I alive was a Russian metropolitan (orthodox equivalent of a cardinal) who was poisoned a few hours before old JPI snuffed it.
Personally I think the BBC ordered the Ukrainian's hit in order to drum up more anti-Russia support. Only the BBC could pull off such an ingenious plan and get away with it. Like people have said, if it was old Vlad, I doubt it would have been so public.
The Godfather II story is based on what is alledged to have happened to JPI, the book Red Rabbit by Tom Clancy is based around JPII...
Indeed, one organisation has a reputation for assassinating dissidents, the other for being left wing in it's politics. Clearly I have them the wrong way around...
One is a secretive and subversive organisation, involved with the dissemination of enemy propaganda and the other is the former Soviet Secret Police.
..involved in the dissemination of state propaganda, rather than enemy
.. Oh and one uses elctrodes as torture - the other Strictly Come Dancing...
I think as far as the BBC are concerned, the State is the enemy. Though the State's power pales in comparison to the Beeb's...
I'd say the BBC is doing something very right indeed, when it gets accused of anti-American and anti-Russian bias, anti-Palestinian and anti-Israeli bias.
Closest to unbiased journalism you're ever going to find in this world methinks.
Sorry, just to check again, you think the BBC has assassins? I mean... what? Everyone in the office who's worked for the BBC is looking pretty confused right now - they do have shit tea, but no one's ever heard of the secret assassin squad they keep hidden in Crinkly Bottom.
Unless of course the whole point is to be obvious, a journalist shot down outside her flat gets the odd few inches of type, but this gets you a lot more and the message is sent out loud and clear.
But, having said that - the 'example' arguement also points the finger at suicide or one of his mates killing him to try and ruin Putin.
Yes Jim. That's really what I think :yeees:
Though it does fit in with their very clear anti-Russian agenda...
That and I know for a fact that they have and still maintain their nuclear bomb shelter
That may be, but you dont need to spin the recent Russian law about extra-judicial killings outside of Russia to make it look bad do you.
An 'extremist' and therefore a legitimate target under the law is someone who is guilty of "slandering the individual occupying the post of president of the Russian Federation".
Well in that case most of the Western media are legitimate targets. For the last time, it wasn't Putin or Moscow. They had nothing to gain from the guy's death and it was not worth the risk if it came back that the Kremlin had any involvement. Which is precisely why I think it was Putin's enemies who did it for the exact reason that everyone (including the former spy himself) would immediately jump to the conclusion that it was Moscow behind it. It's a brilliantly devised plan.
- If it is true, as many claim, that it was Moscow itself that planted the bombs on those apartment blocks in order to justify an attack in Chechnya, Putin and co. would go to any lengths to keep that quiet. As the murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya could tell you from the grave.
- Alexander Litvinenko was investigating her death and he was allegedly supplied with a list of Russian officers responsible for it on the day he was poisoned.
- He was a harsh critic of Putin and he said on his book Putin is a kiddie-fiddler and claims many in the (former) KGB are aware of it.
- polonium-210 is an indescribably rare and difficult to obtain substance. It is unimaginable that it was supplied by anyone other than a government agency. No terrorist or mafioso could get their hands in any of it in a million years.
Frankly I can't believe you are seriously suggesting it was anyone other than Moscow who had him killed.
Putin is a dodgy corrupt fucker and no mistake.
Nothing to gain other than silencing a critic and showing the whole world nicely what they do to critics (knowing full well even if it did come out there is very little the World could do about it).
I havent the faintest idea who did it, and I dont believe you do either - to dismiss the idea that Putin was responsible out of hand seems to show an obvious bias on your side.
The line between mafioso, oligark, goverment official and the FSB is sometimes quite thin in Russia.
Because most of the evidence points towards the fact that Moscow had nothing to do with it.
People don't normally talk once they're dead so using that as an argument is pretty retarded.
Some people will do anything to get a book published won't they? Putin is a kiddie fiddler? He's married with two children and the very fact that it's unsubstantiated means that it can't really be used in an argument.
Wrong. According to the Telegraph article cited earlier
Granted they couldn't have waltzed down to Lidl and bought some but I rekon that if I had motive, with my semi-ok grasp of Russian, I could probably get my hands on some too. So that puts paid to that.
A lot less dodgy and corrupt that the Western leaders and Putin looks like a positive saint next to Bush, but hey ho, since he's RUSSIAN (boo hiss! communism, human rights boo!), used to work for the KGB (boo hiss! evil!) he must be bad...