What is Digg?230 Comments
- onyxcoltrane, on 08/11/2008, -1/+64I try to keep myself fully informed on politics and world events. To be honest I do not know what to believe anymore. I feel like I just woke up and I'm a character in Orwell's "1984".
- SergioSV, on 08/11/2008, -17/+69War in Georgia - truth about Saakashvili's invasion in South Osetia: http://digg.com/politics/War_in_Georgia_truth_abou ...
As result Georgian forces attack more than 2,000 civilians dead in South Ossetia.
Chronicle of events:
- 1 Aug 2008 First South-Osstian civil victims dead from Georgian fire
...
- 6 Aug 2008 Georgia started massive shelling of villages near Tshinvali
- 7 Aug 2008 23:30 Georgia started massive shelling of Tshinvali
- 8 Aug 2008 03:00 state minister of Georgia announces that Tshinvali is surrounded by georgian forces.
- 8 Aug 2008 15:00 Tshinvali is demolished. About 1400 ossetians killed
- 8 Aug 2008 16:00 Ossetian forces started counter attack, russian tanks entered Ossetia and fired towards georgian forces, Georgian forces left Tshinvali
There is some facts from (see below duplicate): http://digg.com/world_news/War_in_Ossetia_and_how_ ...
"Let's see some facts and how it present on US media.
Facts:
1. Georgian army invaded South Ossetia and kill 1500 civilians (2% of all South Ossetia population) and kill more then 10 peacekeepers in first day of war. Before Russian army come.
2. 30000 refugees goes to Russia and ask protection, no one goes to Georgia.
3. South Ossetian capital completely destroyed (with civilians inside) by Georgian heavy weapon.
4. Georgians used "Grad" (reactive artillery systems) to destroy Tshinvali. This is not "precision weapons". "Grad" destroy all and kill everybody on square kilometers.
5. Only after all this happened Russian army come South Ossetia and start destroying Georgian military objects.
6. World media begins company about Russian Aggression. May be there some civilians killed by Russian weapon when they fight military objects on Georgia. It's bad. Very bad. But it's far far from 1500 civilians killed by Georgians in first day and 500 civilians in 2nd day.
7. There is no any oil pipeline on South Ossetia. But Georgia have oil pipeline on their territory.
8. Georgia ally of US. South Ossetia ally of Russia.
It's facts.
What say American politics:
1. Russian response 'disproportionate'
2. Russia must go out
(if 1500 civilians killed by Georgia at first day, how much they kill if Russia go out? politics do not care about that. They care about "who is our ally" but not "who kill 2000 civilians by 2 days")
What say media:
1. Russia invades Georgia
2. Georgia forces seek cease-fire
(seek cease-fire, after killing 2000 civilians!!!)
3. Russian warplanes target Georgia
4. There many pics in world media from Georgia and nothing from South Ossetia
(nothing about real facts, looks like it Russian invades - technically it's not lie, but they hide true)
And some questions:
1. What a hell with this world happen? Why real genocide with 2000 dead people is not interesting to world media.
2. People, please, why you so love story about Russian aggressors? Why you dont see who is real aggressor?!
3. I understand that Georgia is your ally. But when your ally make genocide why your media support it?" - ciaran036, on 08/11/2008, -24/+71I woke up on Saturday morning, went to the BBC website. On the front page, the main headline read "Russian jets attack Georgian town".
So I clicked on the story, which included pictures of injured Georgians:
Here are excerpts from that article:
"Russian jets have carried out strikes on military targets in the central Georgian town of Gori, close to the breakaway region of South Ossetia."
"Georgian officials say 60 people were killed when bombs hit two blocks of flats in the town."
"Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said his country was seeking "to force the Georgian side to peace".
"The comments came after Russian commanders announced they were sending more troops into South Ossetia. They also confirmed two Russian jets had been shot down over Georgia, although they did not say where. "
"After days of exchanging heavy fire with the Russian-backed separatists, Georgian forces launched a surprise attack on Thursday night to regain control of the region, which has had de facto independence since the end of a civil war in 1992. "
"In response, Moscow sent armoured units across the border. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said about 1,500 people had been killed so far, including 15 of his country's soldiers.
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili denounced the claims of a high civilian death toll as an "egregious lie".
"Georgia said Russia had also launched air strikes on targets inside its territory, in what it described as "a full-scale military invasion".
"The UK, the US and France, are pinpointing what they say is Russia's aggression as the key factor in the slide towards war, while Moscow insists Georgia is to blame. "
Only after looking at various other media sources was I to realise that the BBC had told me only half the story. Other news sources which have let me down in a similar way include The Sun, The Daily Mirror, CBS and CNN.
The vast majority of the news stories I read, including this one, failed to mention the Georgian attack on South Ossetia, which left 1500 people dead. The BBC mentions this, but does not point out that those dead are the South Ossetians, who declared independence from Georgia in the 1990s.
If I had only read news from BBC, I would be under the impression that Russia have attacked Georgia out of the blue and left 1500 people dead. This, of course is far from the truth. But that's what I had thought until I had investigated further. It was the other way about. This article was never updated to include the full story.
In another article, the BBC make out the Georgians killed a dozen peacekeepers - they ignore the fact that the Georgians had actually killed at least 1000 people before the Russians intervened. Instead, the BBC then say that in response, the Russians bombed Georgian towns, killing around 60 people, before the Russians escalated the conflict further.
It's the same in nearly every other Western mainstream media source. Watching CBS, they had pictures of tanks underneath a title that said, "Russian assault", again pointing the blame at Russia!
And I noticed too, on the like of CNN and BBC, news reports gave the Georgian President far more air-time than they gave anyone else. In a 10 minute segment of CNN, the Georgian President had been allowed to talk for several minutes, but all we got from the Russian PM was a quote from earlier on. And the things the Georgian President were saying was utter balls. He said things like "They took a convenient time to attack such a small country" and "We're under attack, help us!".
I had to go to the likes of infowars.com and watch Russia Today to get the full story. My household are being forced to pay more than $200/£100 for BBC's TV license. And this is the kind of rubbish they spew out! - Catspaw, on 08/11/2008, -8/+53How sad. Propaganda and the dissemination of outright lies have become the norm, rather than the exception.
- jellygraph, on 08/12/2008, -8/+34What utter *****. The BBC has critical articles of the matter. Every article I've read so far has been measured and lacking that element of propoganda that you read in american or russian news.
This story is dugg down for complete BS, coming from a website that may have well been designed by Alex Jones.
The following is a good example of some good journalism coming from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7555155.st ... - kaskarn, on 08/12/2008, -2/+23This is a war with no "right" side. Any source picturing the situation in black and white is essentially spreading agenda-fulfilling misinformation. That definitely includes some American media, that might include the BBC, but It is definitely naive to think that Russian is any less manichean.
- inactive, on 08/12/2008, -6/+25If only there were a plague that killed only politicians, international bankers, and corporate media whores!!!
- katagana, on 08/12/2008, -5/+22WHat is this crap, the BBC actually told the story from two sides! THey don't take positions! Listen to the world service, they said that they didn't saw Russian troops on Georgian territory contrary to Georgian claims. BBC is the only broadcaster that tries to be neutral, how ever difficult, Russia today is also filth...
Besides where two sides fight, both are to blame, the debate is too polarised. Both parties should cease combat operations and start working on a long time peace agreement over disputed territories! Saakasvili and Putin are both autocratic leaders who don't fear to use brutal force. And Russia's claim to the territories is quite legitimate, but they say nothing about there own desputed provinces like Checnya, which is a similar scenario. Bush is also to blame for this, he wanted Georgia to provoke Russia, and acted like the USA would back Georgia, making Saakasvili overconfident!
What really worries me is the polarisation of the world today, you are either a western style democrat or you are a aurocratic style nationalist, you can not be in the middle of the debate. We've seen this in the debates over Tibet, where the west and chinese had a furious debate, but also over Darfur, Kosovo and now this. Russians choose exclusively the Russian side, Europeans the European, Americans the american and Chinese the Chinese side. The truth is much more subtle and lies somewhere in the middle.... Please people start informing yourselfs better, don't let political SPIN get to you. This goes for ALL sides of the debate, because the free western media isn't great either... - consonance, on 08/12/2008, -13/+30Okay, I'm getting the feeling that the people who originally dugg this are also the people who dugg up each other's comments. Talk about an echo chamber. The BBC has traditionally proven to be one of the most unbiased news sources in the world for a long time. This website makes a lot of assertions and doesn't do a whole lot of citing sources--not even the articles supposedly that are wrong. Also, consider the fact that in the wake of a major event, often the first information is not going to be right. So I think it's best to take this article with a bucket of salt, or even two.
- inactive, on 08/12/2008, -2/+19Totally agree. I get most of my news from BBC (balanced by various other sources), and I find it to be the straightest media outlet out there. Sure, you get more airtime to the Georgian side, but it isn't as biased as this guy states - esp when you consider he points to Russian media sites as proof of this bias, as if the Russian media isn't!
I knew about the Georgian attacks on South Ossetia (from BBC news).
I knew most of the reported deaths were from that attack (from BBC news).
I also knew the quoted figures were from an official Russian statement (from BBC news)
I also understand that the region has been in turmoil for years (from BBC news).
Russia have bases in Georgia (although they were planning to leave them - who knows now?) (from BBC news).
Truth be told, both sides have been at fault.
Georgia refuses to accept South Ossetia's independence (from BBC news),
Russia punishes them by hiking fuel prices, and refusing imports from Georgia (from BBC news),
and so it goes...
The biggest mistake was letting Russia enter South Ossetia as a peace-keeping force. How could they possibly be neutral, in a situation like that? - SergioSV, on 08/11/2008, -14/+30There is information regarding Reuters photos:
http://kvisaz.ru/files//2008/08/photo.jpg
Its a fake. On the first photo, a man who is crying - is an actor of Tbilisi`s city theater. Russian parlament will take an examination about these all things and Georgia will be punished legally and documentary. - sunsunych, on 08/12/2008, -11/+27digg is becoming more pro-justice
- arjie, on 08/12/2008, -3/+19I read the BBC report from the beginning, and I think this is more a case of inadequate information. It was clear in the early articles that it was Georgia that did the 1.5k in, but I think the articles following that assumed that people would know that Georgia attacked first.
Shoddy reporting perhaps, but I'm not too sure it's propaganda. Though their TV channel doesn't seem to be very fair, when talking about Russia it shows tanks and rockets and when talking about Georgia, cowering civilians are shown. - jeuhrn, on 08/12/2008, -11/+26It should be noted that South Ossetia is not regarded or recognized as a sovereign state by anyone, so it's not too difficult to see why people are calling this a Russian interference in an internal Georgian conflict.
Swedens former prime minister Carl Bildt compared the russian tactic of "protecting Russian citizens" in SO, to that of Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia to protect the sudeten-germans.
If you are intent on calling this invasion anything other than what it is, you should perhaps ask yourself why the russian attack was so coordinated, and why it hasn't stopped.
It should be recognized that south Ossetia is not russian territory, and Spetznaz forces are not 'peacekeepers'. - inactive, on 08/12/2008, -3/+17http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN1 ...
Actually a fairly decent article:
Simes said U.S. encouragement of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, one of Washington's staunchest allies, may have led him to believe he could get away with military action to take back control of South Ossetia.
Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations, agreed that U.S. encouragement may have made Saakashvili "miscalculate" and send Georgian troops into South Ossetia.
"I think in many respects Saakashvili got too close to the United States and the United States got too close to Saakashvili," Kupchan said. "It made him overreach, it made him feel at the end of the day that the West would come to his assistance if he got into trouble."
"When you have very thin relations, it doesn't give you a lot of diplomatic tools," said Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who is now a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. "There are not a lot of things in terms of U.S.-Russian cooperation that we can threaten to stop, that the Russians care about."
Summary:
Georgia ***** up big time.
Their stupid president arrogantly miscalculated the consequences of his cowardly attack.
The U.S. can't do ***** because Russia doesn't really care what they have to say.
Georgia is completely screwed because of their stupid president who gave the orders to slay 2000 Russian citizens. - Paranoidmarvin, on 08/12/2008, -1/+15I wouldn't say it has been completely distorted. There have been a lot of references to war crimes and ethnic cleansing by Georgia on the BBC and I've seen plenty of Ossetian people say that they don't like Georgia etc.
There is a balanced story, just use your head to pick out the right pieces of information - toetagger, on 08/12/2008, -1/+14That plague is called The Truth.
- brooho, on 08/12/2008, -2/+13To know who attacked the peaceful people, look where the fleeing refugees. Refugees fled to Russia and asks to protect them. Noone goes to Georgia.
See Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the ...
The Refugees:
"We were sitting on the ground... when a group of Georgian bombers flew overhead," she said. "They started dropping bombs everywhere. One landed right near us. We thought we were going to die. What will we do now? We have nothing. No money. No clothes. Where will they go to school? What can we do?"
Most people described scenes of horror, chaos and destruction. Few buildings are left standing in Tskhinvali, refugees said. Aerial and artillery bombardment had destroyed the hospital, maternity ward and cemetery, while most of the city's housing lies in ruins. - poidh, on 08/12/2008, -15/+26Just an observation: Digg is becoming more pro-China and more pro-Russian with every passing day.
- Rudegar, on 08/12/2008, -2/+12i think the thing is that South Ossetia never got real in-dependency in the eyes of the world it's still all Georgia
- Dozernotz, on 08/12/2008, -1/+11@SergioSV
"And some questions:
1. What a hell with this world happen? Why real genocide with 2000 dead people is not interesting to world media."
Well, the event is getting coverage, maybe just not as much as if it were happening in downtown Chicago or something. Most MSM are large western corporations. They exist to make money. If they believe their audience is tired of hearing about sad things, they're going to run videos of Paris Hilton instead. Moral hazards of this sort an inherent limitation to for-profit news. Moral hazards of a different sort happen with news that's state-sponsored.
"2. People, please, why you so love story about Russian aggressors? Why you dont see who is real aggressor?!"
The problem is that nobody has facts. Western media seems to be taking a pro-Georgian stance, non-western media is giving other reports. I've seen pro-Russians on Digg saying one thing, pro-Georgians saying another. If I have to assume that most people posting on Digg are not on the front line, where are they getting their information? Where did you get your facts SergioSV? If it's another news station, you're basically just asking me to trust your news station more than the others. I'm not saying I don't, but I have no reason to.
3. I understand that Georgia is your ally. But when your ally make genocide why your media support it?"
Not everyone watches the media with a heart full of shining trust. But until the propaganda dies down, or until some objective person (if such a thing exists) catches a plane out to document the event, facts are scarce right now.
I'm sorry people are dying. Genuinely. But I don't know what to do about it because I live in a prison of secondary sources. - Tarnum, on 08/12/2008, -5/+15No, it's the Chinese and Russian emmigrants feeling nostalgic and supporting their motherlands.
I guess they forgot the poverty, human right violations and the widespread corruption over there. - sat0shi, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9Nice flexing of your intellectual e-peen. Unfortunately you fail at reading comprehension. He wasn't saying that he was directly relating himself to Winston, he was saying he felt like he was a character in Orwell's world of 1984. Whether or not any other characters in 1984 doubted what was coming from the Ministry of Truth does not necessarily mean that onyxcoltrane would not have his/her doubts about them if he/she was indeed a character in the book. Jesus, get out of your mom's basement and breathe some fresh air once in a while.
- polumrak, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9That's quite old, actually — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians
- nirvanix, on 08/12/2008, -2/+11What'll really blow your mind is that this has been going on for decades, The only difference is that we didn't have the internet to get the facts ourselves.
- waydee, on 08/12/2008, -4/+12Its just commies crawling out of the woodwork to defend the motherland, take no notice of them - for the past few days they've spammed up every forum they could find with their cries of bias and western propaganda, backed up by links to the Russian media... right, who do you trust - pravda or the BBC?
- waydee, on 08/12/2008, -1/+9infowars? don't make me laugh.
The BBC is one of the few relatively unbiased news sources still available, infowars has a clear as day tinfoil-hat bias that causes it not to be taken seriously by anybody apart from diggtards and conspiracy theorists. - zadadka, on 08/12/2008, -6/+14As I've said elsewhere, Georgia are the agressor here, first, last and again (like 1992-3).
Russia have done exactly what Desert Storm did to Iraq in Kuwait : pushed the agressor out, and then away from the borders, created a buffer zone away from the border, and given the agressors' military a bloody nose.
As sanctioned peacekeepers in the region, Russia did exactly right.
Our media's skewed view of events is bad enough, but that so many appear to have lapped it up just leaves a bitter taste....
Russia have now ceased forward motion operations against Georgia, so civilians can breath easier, and the true picture may be seen, much as I've indicated since Day 1 of these events.. - gogog0, on 08/12/2008, -7/+15there are valid points here but its kind of hard for people to argue that russia's response hasn't been over the top
- inactive, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8The investigation was never 'independent', but it never reported that the claims of WMD's were true, just that there was insufficient evidence to show it was deliberately 'sexed up' (the words of the BBC).
I was worried myself once the new Directors took up position, but these worries were unfounded, as the BBCstill gave most war stories a balanced view, very VERY different from any DOD press releases. They did indeed report on these, but also showed the ground view, and gave a voice to many opinions that you would not have got in mainstream American media.
In short, if you already have a biased view of your own, you will easily see bias against your particular view anywhere and everywhere you look. If, however, you look with a realistic eye, you can better see the truth through the bull. - waydee, on 08/12/2008, -2/+9BBC coverage made frequent mention of the Georgian attack on South Ossetia.
You see a bias because they're reporting on what happened? read back to the first stories that appeared on the conflict and you'll see - just because you handpicked one report from a few days later doesn't mean the BBC completely avoided mentioning the Georgian attack. - 2reflective, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8This reminds me of the excellent movie Wag the Dog
- kaskarn, on 08/12/2008, -7/+14Ok ok, I'm not among the "waa Russia is evil crowd", but I can almost hear a russian accent while reading your comment.
- paulsmith288, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8I've been reading lots of BBC coverage from the beginning. I have been fully aware that Georgia made the first move.
"I had to go to the likes of infowars.com and watch Russia Today to get the full story"
Russia today to get the full story - like that isn't going to be a bit one sided. - ciaran036, on 08/12/2008, -4/+11That's not a bad thing. You say that like we're supposed to hate China and Russia.
- EvilKaz, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6Not at all, if reporting its clearly biased towards one viewpoint then the natural reaction of most free thinking people is to ask "what are they not telling us? and why?"
- Dozernotz, on 08/12/2008, -2/+8Also possible that it's always been the norm, but people now have more questions about it because they're encountering conflicting accounts on the internet.
Not that the internet is exactly free from disinformation but at least it's coming from individuals rather than institutions. - RuslanZ, on 08/12/2008, -2/+8If you don't like russian accent, please go read Wikipedia, all the same facts are there. Or do you believe that Wikipedia is also controlled by Russian propaganda ? If so, you should also aware of Google, since it was founded by Russian ;-).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian-Ossetian_con ... - Untit1ed, on 08/12/2008, -2/+8I love these articles - attacks on the BBC based on poor journalism from lesser news outlets. Until members of the BBC are being killed for opposing the government, I'll be believing them over Russia.
- MikhaelB, on 08/11/2008, -9/+15War in Ossetia: Easy comics for dummies
http://digg.com/world_news/War_in_Ossetia_Easy_com ...
http://digg.com/world_news/Situation_in_Georgia - flashback99, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6Political bias and propoganda is standard fare now for the BBC.
- goettel, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6Being fully aware of the the Alex Jones type of journalism (note how I don't put quotes on that, since some of his reporting has been very revealing - can't stand the Infowars sensationalism though), I still have pretty high regards for the BBC.
Why? Adam Curtis. I have some measure of trust in any media giant which puts on documentary's like his The Power Of Nightmares, The Trap - What happened To Our Dreams Of Freedom?, Century Of The Self and Pandora's Box. - cygnus2112, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tskhinvali
"Timeline before Russian Army interfered
August, 1 till 7 - preparation of both sides (Ossetian and Georgian):
* information exchange about attacks on Georgia-controlled villages (Avnevi[citation needed]; Tamarasheni[citation needed]; Prisi[citation needed]; Kurta[citation needed])"
http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_cont ...
"Aug. 7, 10:30 p.m.: South Ossetia breaks a cease-fire agreement with Georgia, according to the secretary of the Georgian National Security Council, Kakha Lomaia. Lomaia said the “separatists opened fire at the two Georgian villages of Prisi and Tamarasheni.”"
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L7395385. ...
""Separatists opened fire at the two Georgian villages of Prisi and Tamarasheni, and we had to return fire," the secretary of the Georgian National Security Council Kakha Lomaia told Reuters.
A Reuters reporter could hear and see the renewed fighting."
August 5th:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080805/115774293.html
"Tbilisi earlier said the shelling of South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, and a neighboring village had been provoked by the rebel region.
South Ossetia's leader said Monday at least 300 North Ossetians had already arrived in the breakaway region, with up to 2,000 expected."
August 6th:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080807/wl_afp/georgi ...
"A Georgian armoured personnel carrier was destroyed by South Ossetian militants near the village of Avnevi one hour ago and three Georgian peacekeepers were wounded as a result"
August 2nd:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L279875.h ...
"It said shooting came from three ethnic Georgian villages, but Georgia blamed the separatists for provoking the clashes.
The commander of Georgia's peacekeeping force in the region, Mamuka Kurashvili, was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying South Ossetian peacekeepers shot at a Georgian village and suspected Russian peacekeepers of taking part.
Georgian peacekeepers and police officers returned fire and repelled the attack, he said.
Georgia's Interior Ministry said nine civilians in the Georgian villages in South Ossetia were injured, while Tskhinvali said up to 15 were injured on its side, up from seven reported on Friday. Kokoity put the number of injured at 13.
"This is another attempt by the separatist side to involve Georgia in a military conflict," Georgia's state minister in charge of re-integration, Temur Iakobashvili, told reporters in Tbilisi before leaving to visit the shootout area.
"The Georgian side was forced to return fire," he added."
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_i ...
"That scenario started unfolding in South Ossetia in late July. By August 6 and 7, heavily armed proxy troops opened fire on Georgian villages, while the secessionist authorities refused to talk with Tbilisi. The attacking forces began destroying the transmission antennae of Georgian mobile telephone systems. Arms and paramilitary groups poured in from Russia to South Ossetia through the Russian-controlled Roki tunnel. Russian officials in Georgia claimed that the attacking forces were out of Russia’s control. Officials in Moscow, meanwhile, justified the attacks directly and indirectly by accusing Georgia of aggression (Interfax, Itar-Tass, Russian Television, August 4-7)." - danskal, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Your exaggerated use of the word "facts" makes me distrust you. You sound exactly like "Fox News - fair and balanced" (Fox News is unfair and biased, in case you didn't know).
It's the same as countries with the word "Democratic" in their name - they are usually run by dictators. - AlexFyo, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5To understand something Its better to read some press from countries not connected to the conflict.
For example http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Kosov ... http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Rusia ...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& ...
It would be interesting to read something from Brazil, Mexico, India, etc.
Can somebody post the articles from these countries???
- Britelites, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6
"As usual, the BBC is twisting and distorting the news coming out of the Georgia region. We keep being told that around 1500 have been killed in Georgia, the inference being that this has resulted from Russian bombing.
Not so, the casualties are in Ossetia."
Speaking of (deliberate?) factual errors:
1) It is South Ossetia we're talking about. Simply calling it Ossetia supports the claim for the unification of North (located in Russia) and South Ossetia (in Georgia). That’s misleading.
2) On a related point, this article presents South Ossetia as though it is not part of Georgia. Wrong again.
And let's not even start to discuss what Russia is currently doing to Georgia. I did not notice I was reading a piece from Pravda. - Indrius, on 08/12/2008, -4/+9There is no real information. Western media says Russians attack and bomb Georgia causing thousands of deaths. Russian media says Georgians attack and bomb Ossetia causing thousands of deaths. Personally I don't believe no media.
But from my experience I can tell that Russian media is the least trustworthy. This Russian propaganda is the same as it was in Soviet Union. That's what we have seen constantly in Eastern Europe.
There are just so many occasions of Russian propaganda lies. When we were declaring independence in 1990. When riots happened in Estonia. And this Georgian thing, I can tell Georgians were being demonized by Russian media for a long time now. For example, vast "documentaries" about "Georgian mafia" terrorizing peaceful Russian nation. Boycott of supposedly poisonous Georgian wine, etc. It's that Russia is still the dictatorship with fake democracy front (Putin is still ruling, Medvedev is just his puppet). And this dictatorship does not want to lose another country to NATO. So basically what Russia is telling: no NATO and EU for Georgia. - philhatesyou, on 08/12/2008, -2/+7The Russians had an international peacekeeping mandate in South Ossetia. Like it or not, they were perfectly right to be there, and to invade when the Georgians decided it was a good idea to shell civilians and try to capture Russian soldiers.
- inactive, on 08/12/2008, -3/+8I'm starting to get the feeling they just put the georgian guy up to killing those russians so russia intervened so they had a finger to point to objectors when the US and israel attack Iran for no reason.
- toetagger, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6You're a digg user, do you tell yourself that?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 231 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 