Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia - Part 14

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Erik Redburn

Have you taken in the fact that I have never advocated what the media does?  My opposition to one form of imperialism however does not mean I feel I have to support or dismiss another, see the difference?


Beltov, A-J quoted some figures:

" August 16, 2009 - 7:58am

#21 (permalink)

N.Beltov wrote:
At the time of last August's horrific atrocities against the civilians of Tskinvali, Georgia brought back from Iraq - or was it Afghanistan? - troops to participate in the bloodbath.

What qualifies as a "bloodbath"?  I know this time last year the Russians were crowing about the thousands and thousands of civilians killed in Tshinvali and South Ossetia generally, but it appears that the numbers Russia itself has settled on are much, much lower:

South Ossetian Civilians - 162

Russian and Separatist Soldiers - 215

Georgian Civilians - 228

Georgian Soldiers/Police - 199

Looks like you, and a lot of other people, fell for Russia's babies-in-incubators story."


And you replied:

" N.Beltov

Be seeing you!

Member: 5140
Joined: May 25 2003

Send private message

August 16, 2009 - 6:08pm
#22 (permalink)

When you get around to providing a source for your numbers, then I'll get around to blowing your numbers out of the water. Wikipedia? uh-huh."


So I assumed you had a better source for this.  There's a reason I asked, but if you can't find another on-hand that's ok too, I already said we can all drop this anytime.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

"babies in incubators" is not the same as casualties in the Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Where are the numbers?

Erik Redburn

I'm asking you this, where are the more accurate numbers you claimed you had?  If you just keep avoiding the substance of my posts then I'll just have to assume you don't really know the score over there either. 

Erik Redburn

And here's your Wiki piece.  I haven't had time to read it through let alone double-check any of it, against others, so feel free to pick it apart if you can.  At a glance though it does seem relatively balanced and has more links than most.


Erik Redburn wrote:
And here's your Wiki piece.  I haven't had time to read it through let alone double-check any of it, against others, so feel free to pick it apart if you can.  At a glance though it does seem relatively balanced and has more links than most.


Geez, that's embarassing.  That's exactly where I got my numbers for my post from a week or more ago, but I must have forgotten to include the link.  Thanks!

I know Beltov won't want to hear what the BBC has to say, but the rest of the sources are in Russian . . .

BBC: Russia scales down Georgia toll

BBC wrote:
Russia has issued new, reduced casualty figures for the Georgian conflict, with 133 civilians now listed as dead in the disputed region of South Ossetia.

The figure is far lower than the 1,600 people Russia initially said had died.

N.Beltov wrote:
. . . or change the subject to Kordofanians, or Cardassians, or the Klingon, about which you've obviously got plenty to say.

Um, Kordofanians are people from Sudan and comparing them in with science fiction aliens because you think they have a funny name comes across as a little racist.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Racist. You mean like being indifferent to the slaughter of Ossetians by the Georgian miliitarist regime, and blaming the victims of Saakashvili's atrocities for the violence?

Erik was, in any case, engaging in thread derailment and wasn't interested, at that time, in further discussion of the war. He said so himself.

Erik Redburn

Thats not quite what I said Beltov, its not like it was a beside-the point observation or an occasional misunderstanding on this particular forum, I was just offering you an out.

And look again, Russia is hardly a small poorly armed nation at the mercy of others, or doing this only to protect neighbours its shown such contempt for itself; the casualties hardly compare to the 10% killed in Darfur or the 70% displaced, mostly from one particular "side" in the "conflict".  If you want to complain about the other guy not being "interested in discussing" an issue then you should at least make some attempt to offer them more than accusations yourself.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

I'm very little interested in a debate about how many were killed by the Georgians, as though those that were killed weren't enough, or something like that, as it's clear that the initial numbers were too high (for whatever reason).

Nothing about the number of casualties changes the responsibility of Saakashvili's regime for the war, however, and I've yet to see any good criticism of the role of the Russians in this conflict other than some claims of illegal weapons, which were refuted, or too slow a reply, which was somewhat understandable in the circumstances, or the tiresome Russophobic Western media biases in which the Russians should, presumably, let a slaughter take place rather than prevent its continuation.

Erik Redburn

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely either Nik.   To show that I'm able to see both sides of a conflict, the EU itself now tends to agree with the Russian's version of least up to a point.


(Like how the UI wire titled it though)


South Ossetia and Abkhazia celebrate Independence Day:

"Another reminder of the lingering tensions from last year's brief Russo-Georgian War, the republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, separatist enclaves whose claims of independence were finally recognized by Russia on August 26, 2008, celebrate the one year anniversary of this recognition as an independence day.

The permanency of their de facto independence is still very much in doubt, as the US has promised to use its position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to ensure that the international community never recognizes the move."

The U.S. and a majority of countries recognize the independence of Kosovo but not South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Sounds like a contradiction to me.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

The issue of Kosovo will continue to bite the USA on the ass. They'll just make up any lie to deal with it.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are different matters. Whatever any American regime thinks, the Abkhazians and Ossetians will never trust the NATO attack dog in Georgia. And that's likely true no matter how soon the Georgians jettison Saakashvili. In time, South Ossetia will join North Ossetia (the latter in Russia itself) and form a little state of its own. The Abkhazians have a very nice bit of territory along the Black Sea, unlike landlocked Ossetia, and I expect they will do well. The NATO/US plans for a reliable base from which to launch an attack on Iran is out the window; so too are various other schemes.

But, like the lidless eye of Sauron, the Russophobes will never sleep, determined to find a new way to enrage the sleeping bear, and will act  surprised when, once again, their proxies and client states get mauled. For now, the forest is quiet, but the little creatures will not forget who it was that disturbed their peace.


The Abkhazians have a very nice bit of territory along the Black Sea, unlike landlocked Ossetia, and I expect they will do well.


Georgia is currently even spitefully trying to interfere with that: