Posted on 12/19/2015 1:03:17 PM PST by Trumpinator
Trump Brushes Off Putin’s Alleged Killing Of Journalists
Zeke J Miller @ZekeJMiller
Dec. 18, 2015
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump brushed off well-documented allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin has had political opponents and journalists killed, following praise from the Russian leader for his presidential campaign.
In an interview with “Morning Joe†Friday, Trump said he was pleased to be praised by Putin. “Sure, when people call you brilliant it’s always good, especially when the person heads up Russia,†he said.†Putin had called Trump “bright and talented†and all-but-endorsed his campaign this week.
But when host Joe Scarborough raised doubts about whether Putin’s support should be coveted, Trump brushed it off.
“He also is a person that kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not,†Scarborough asked.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Well that's as good as a conviction! Who needs a jury when one has "well-documented allegations" against you?
Who died and made blog pimp Zeke Miller some respected media figure?
It is not that simple.
In defense of a nation from external threats, strategic land becomes very important. It is not being against them at point. It is being for personal survival. Examine all war and world wide conflicts, past and current.
The “innocent” nations, especially Ukraine, are not really innocent. Ukraine was told flat out what their joining the EU meant to Russia, how it threatened them. Keep in mind Russia and Ukraine have many many ties to each other. That move was a spit in the face. The order of these countries is to join EU and eventually join NATO. Perhaps if they want to avoid conflict with Russia, they should not join up with Russia’s enemy. So small, yes. Innocent, no. And we (U.S. and NATO) are the pot stirrers. If we cared about those nations, maybe we should do things differently, too. We are the ones breaking promises and instigating trouble.
After the fall of the USSR and the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, NATO tried to change Russia’s perspective of it by making that agreement to not expand toward its border. The reason Russia has renewed its view of NATO as its enemy is because of that broken promise. So that is a second front of the NATO instigating the trouble perspective.
Two fronts: Renew and escalate old distrust and threats to Russia’s homeland(attitude - “We do not distrust each other because we are armed, we are armed because we distrust each other” Ronald Reagan); and second, expand NATO toward Russian borders, gobbling up old allies and turning them into enemies (actual physical threat).
So, a woman invites rape by dressing provocatively. Got it.
Your analogy is way off on so many levels. I think you know that.
A more accurate analogy would be terrorist woman Malik standing there with her gun pointed at you. Do you arm yourself, too, or do you pull an Obama and not allow armament? The temptation is for conflict and the threat is instigated by the side you call the woman.
Why are media people so stupid?
Were FDR or Truman happy to sit down with Stalin at Yalta? Stalin was responsible for more murders and genocide than anyone in history, yet American Presidents sat with him, smiled for the cameras and called him a critical Allie, why?
The answer is simple, the Soviets were part of the effort in defeating Nazi Germany.
Now Donald Trump views Russians as critical to defeating ISIS. After ISIS is defeated, then the relationship with Russia will be reviewed.
It’s not complicated when you have Trump as CINC. He understands better than any other candidate what’s going on. He knows the Middle East is full of bad guys and one must choose which bad guy to take out first and to that end it is efficient to make alliances with other bad guys to get it done. No other candidate is as smart as Donald Trump in this subject matter, none. And it is exactly coming from Donald’s prowess in being a smart and tough negotiator. That’s why he’s the best guy bar none for the job. We are so fortunate to have him at this time in American history.
Yep.
Not long after Tim Russert asked then candidate hussein a question he couldn't answer and pressed for an answer, Russert was dead.
Andrew Breitbart, hussein opponent dead.
Michael Hastings, hussein opponent dead.
Joan Collins tells journalists that hussein is a homo and soon after, she is dead.
Riight. And if only the women had covered themselves and acted like good Russian dhimmis Russia would not have stoned them to death.
“Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump brushed off well-documented allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin has had political opponents and journalists killed.”
__________________________________________________________
If Time calls them “allegations” even though they are well documented means they are not a certainty. So what are they saying? Basically nothing.
If you had read the links, you would know:
1. The statement of the Ukrainian military chief of staff is on video on YouTube.
2. The original source for German intelligence is Der Spiegel.
3. The original source for French intelligence is the French National Assembly website.
4. The statement of the former NATO general is on video at the link.
5. The original source for OSCE is - OSCE.
The US media won’t report these statements because it contradicts their phony Ukraine narrative.
Covered what? The guns? The pipe bombs? So they would be victims like those at the San Bernardino Christmas party?
Your analogy is so pitifully ridiculous. Anyway, it was NATO that was viewed as the thread. NATO is the gun. The country can be the woman (since you seem to insist). A woman with a big gun is just as big a threat as a man with a big gun. A woman with no gun standing right next to someone with a big gun is a big threat. Hello?
So if Mexico and Canada form a military pact with Russia and China and, say, North Korea and let them build bases along our border, you think we should do nothing? Or how about just little old Puerto Rico. How about the Russia/China/North Korea military pact gobble up Puerto Rico. What would we do?
South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia back in 1990 (sort of like another country did in 1776).
War ensued and a ceasefire was agreed to by Georgia and the rebels.
“The ceasefire agreement left South Ossetia divided into areas controlled by Georgia and areas controlled by the unrecognised government of South Ossetia. It also created the Joint Control Commission (including Georgia, Russia, North Ossetia and South Ossetia) and, under JCC mandate, introduced the joint peacekeeping forces (JPKF), made up of Georgian, Russian and Ossetian soldiers.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991%E2%80%9392_South_Ossetia_War
Saakashvili violated this longstanding agreement when he attacked South Ossetia in 2008 as the EU admitted.
Soverign countries if invited, certainly have the right to join NATO. You don't think so?
I’m digging in my kitchen pantry for more tinfoil! Need me a new hat!
And some popcorn! ‘Cause, some of this stuff I’ve read is getting GOOD!!!!!
Killing journalists is a bad thing? Did Joey ask Trump his opinion on former Congressman blowhards with dead staffers in their offices?
I do think so. I question the wisdom of inviting them given the consequences of conflict with Russia. Who is benefiting? There is no necessity of a prearranged agreement to defend them. We don’t even know the issues yet. Seems dumb to agree to defend everyone without knowing the issue before hand. Join them when it happens and you have a chance to weigh it.
I see the need for some strategic locations for NATO. I think NATO is stupid to expand without regard to the negative reactions, especially in violation of previous agreements.
We see NATO as the good guys, because it is us. But too much concentrated power is never good. It may start out in the hands of good guys. It never seems to end that way. NATO is necessary. Super duper bigger and broader than life NATO would be a threat to everyone. Human nature is not capable of that. Corruption WILL set in. Viewing ourselves as immune to that is wrong, even minus the Russia issue.
Our first priority should be our own homeland.
Again, Ukraine is a sovereign nation. You apparently don't think a sovereign nation has the right to join the EU if it wants to.
I do think so.
Good.
Well, I don’t think so if NATO made a commitment not to expand in order to obtain Russia’s consent to German reunification. Here’s what George F. Kennan, America’s premier Cold War diplomat had to say about the first round of NATO expansion per the NYT in 1998
‘’I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,’’ said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ‘’I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.’’
‘’What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,’’ added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ‘’X,’’ defined America’s cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ‘’I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don’t people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html
They have the right. And Russia has the right to respond. Ukraine was not unified in that decision. Thus the civil war. What about those who disagreed? We had a civil war. Should other nations have come over here and chosen up sides? How do you think that would have ended? I suggest it would have ended with the end of the U.S.A. We would now be owned by someone else. Sometimes it is better to let those people figure it out, right or wrong, themselves.
The EU was also stirring up trouble and they knew it. There are no really innocent parties in that conflict.
La la la....I’m just having fun here...la la la...while I build a cannon ON MY OWN PROPERTY and aim it at my neighbor....la la la....move along.
your reply does't make sense. If Ukraine has the right to join the EU then Russia doesn't have the right to physically prevent it.
Ukraine was not unified in that decision.
So what. Ukraine is a sovereign country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.