I wonder if La Russophobe's investigations into the London bombings will be any more thorough than those of the British Home Office, which recently concluded that the attack was not connected with al-Qaeda, but was organised by British natives in reaction to their government's involvement in the Iraq War.
With all the inexcusable things that Putin has done, it is typical that this blog's most constructive strategy is to go chasing after inexistent bogeymen in the shadows.
Perhaps before taking this post down as well, Russophobe might offer an apology for the grossly inaccurate entry on Russia's presence on Google.

REITH: Oh, I SEE. You are FOE of Putin, and you just think that this blog is HELPING him, do you?

Well then, by all means please give us some links to your posts that attack Putin in the RIGHT way. We'd love to see them, really we would, and we promise to model our work after them. *waiting impatiently with bated breath*

And, while you're at it, try to bear in mind that the point of this post is that the Russian KGB trains terrorists, terrorists who may have killed Westerns, be it London, Madrid or elsewhere. And try to give La Russophobe at least 24 hours before telling it what conclusions it has to come to, can't you dear?

And while you're at that, try to bear in mind that the point of the Google post was to document Russia's murder rate, tourism rate and the prevalence of the term "neo-Soviet" on the web, none of which points you disputed. The rest was just playing with your poor confused little brain, coz it's so much fun. ;)

And while you're doing ALL that, would it be too much trouble to SOURCE your statement about the Home Office? I mean you have heard of sourcing, haven't you? Do I HAVE to remind you again?

The point of the Google post, where you claimed for some absurd reason that the term "Russia hate" appeared more often than "Russia love" in searches, was the same as that of all the other posts on this blog. To mendaciously distort every phenomenon of human existence as proof of the inherent evil of Russia. Unfortunately, it wasn't even true, so you were compelled to take the post down.
For reasons I have explained to you in detail before, this blog does do the dirty work of Putin apologists as it makes his critics look like they are motivated by xenophobic contempt of Russia, regardless of whoever is governing it. You ask for links to anti-Putin blogs, in spite of the fact that all but a handful of English-language blogs about Russia are anti-Putin. Only this blog stands out for its exceptionally offensive and xenophobic overtones.
Finally, you want sources for the story about the Home Office report, which was widely reported in the United Kingdom. I will provide a link to such a story for you, but meanwhile why don't you also think about why the media you are exposed to has not reported on the fact that the British government has found, in its report on the London bombing, that the Iraq War has left it prone to terrorist attacks and that these attacks were not connected to Al-Qaeda. I am perfectly willing to agree with you that Putin's government is complicit in some appalling violence, but you would foolhardy and naive to imagine that Western governments can automatically adopt a position of moral superiority.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1745085,00.html

REITH: In other words, you've never written a post published anywhere attacking Putin for anything. Just as we thought. Nor have you agreed with or commented upon any of the articles published in this blog.

And your source is the Guardian. Gotcha. Will look into it.

PS: And you mendaciously distort the posts on this site by ignoring their main points and attacking the author personally, just as you claim the author is wrong in doing. In other words, you're a blazing hypocrite.

REITH:

I have checked your link. You are a mendacious liar. The article clearly states that Al-Quaeda WAS involved in the London bombings:

"The Home Office account of the July atrocity also chronicles in detail the trips to Pakistan made by Khan and Shehzad Tanweer and is understood to confirm that the two met al-Qaeda operatives. However, the final report will not name the militants known to some of the London bombers in case criminal proceedings are taken against them."

Did you think I wouldn't read your link? Or did you just not read it yourself? Anyway, thanks for the unintentional confirmation that La Russophobe is on the right track.

Heavens above, do you want a running commentary as well as a source. Ok, here's a quote on the same story from the Sunday edition of the Guardian:

"The official inquiry into the 7 July London bombings will say the attack was planned on a shoestring budget from information on the internet, that there was no 'fifth-bomber' and no direct support from al-Qaeda, although two of the bombers had visited Pakistan."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1750139,00.html

The point is that the bombing was organised indpendently of al-Qaeda and, more importantly, was inspired by the war in Iraq. My original point being that Osama Bin Laden and Putin are not the only people to cause terrorist acts to take place.

The POINT, sir, is that my article say NOTHING about the KGB giving "direct support" like money or bombs to the London or Madrid bombers.

The POINT, sir, is that my article states that the KGB TRAINS TERRORISTS and as such was "COMPLICIT" (my word) in the London and Madrid bombings, which may have relied upon TRAINING provided by the KGB.

The POINT, sir, is that YOU stated that the London "attack was not connected with al-Qaeda" when in fact it WAS connected as the bombers MET WITH AL-QUAEDA IN PAKISTAN.

And the KGB is connected with Al-Quaeda ACCORDING TO THE KGB.

AND WHAT IS WORSE, the KGB ITSELF commits acts of terror without any assistance from anyone.

AND WHAT IS EVEN WORSE, Putin is a MEMBER of the KGB.

My article said NOTHING about the role "other nations" may have played in the London bombings, I couldn't care less about that. You may or may not have noticed that this blog is about RUSSIA, not "other countries."

I only want to know whether RUSSIA was involved or not.

Your attempt to drag in other countries is a mendacious bit of propaganda designed to take attention away from that question. As such, I spit on it.

Ok, so you maintain that the KGB, or the FSB as it now known, was complicit in the London and Madrid bombings, i.e. that they were "associated with or participated" in the attacks. You admit that that there is no demonstrable direct link between the KGB and the terrorist though, so the claim is easy to make. It would be as easy to say that the CIA was complicit in that it provided financial and material support to jihadists in Afghanistan. So, what's the point?
You cannot blithely dismiss the role of other countries, because the act of omission might give the ill-informed or prejudicially informed reader the impression that the complicity you write about is indicative of direct Russian support. Which it is not.
As for the al-Qaeda connection, this is very simple. If Osama Bin Laden once met and received financial and material support from CIA operatives, which he did, would you say that the CIA was connected to the 9/11 attacks? No, you wouldn't. Yet, the London bombers received no money and no training from al-Qaeda, as far as we know. They were religious fanatics angered by the war in Iraq and they made the independent decision to commit an act that they organised and funded on their own.
What has Russia got to do with this? Nothing.

The point is that it is bad to be complicit in terrorism. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

And is it also true that Russia is not the only country to be complicit in terrorism? Or are you saying that only Russia, because it is a country of "brutal savages" (not your words, but often the strident tone that this blog lends itself to), could stoop to such iniquity?

It is true that it makes absolutely no difference what other countries are doing. The fact that other countries had slaves didn't make it OK for Americans to have them. Talking about the problems other countries had with slavery didn't make the American slaves free. Only direct confrontation of the American slave owners did that.

Let me be clear in saying that just as Martin Luther King concluded white moderates were more deadly to the cause of racial justice in America than the KKK, I think the Russian people are more deadly to the cause of democracy in Russia than the KGB.

Your method is becoming clearer, Russo.

1. Make a ridiculous comment in a post about Russia, one that makes you look like a green-ink writing crank.

2. Have that comment destroyed in the comments section, where you are made to look even more of a fool, and perhaps even more of a crank.

3. In response, make every effort to explain what you were "really" saying.

4. Change or delete your original post.

It's all part of the comedy around this place.

It's your method that is becoming quite clear, you moron. In all your numerous posts you have never made a substantive point backed up by any evidence of any kind or brought any reference to useful resources to the discussion. All you do is blabber like the idiotic Russophile fool that you are.

Only a Russian would find reports of numerous race murders and his government's support of terrorist regimes to be funny. The Politburo also found such things funny, and look where it got them.

Let me make sure I understand you. Shall we try some classical logic.

To find your blog funny means I find race murder funny. Ergo your blog is race murder.

Hmm. Closer to the truth than we might have expected.

Don't you feel a bit dirty and sad after your various pathetic posts?

Why, please tell, would I want to add anything to your discussion? You aren't having a discussion. You're hectoring people like some ill-informed soap box performer in Hyde Park.

Besides which, when genuine comments are offered -- such as the harsh but, in my book, very useful advice about your "translation" (essentially: "It's crap, and here's why...") -- you go off on tangents of hyperbole and rabid nonsense.

Here's a question or two.

You obviously are passionate about this whole thing. And presumably you want to convince people of your opinion (else why the blog?). So why don't you try to command a bit more respect by not acting the like some undereducated bigot?

Or isn't it an act?

I doubt you'll answer.

Thanks
Vanichka

I believe Stalin also had such feelings, that if he didn't take someone seriously that meant nobody else in the world did, and certainly nobody who mattered. But Stalin lived in his own dream world, and every so often Stalin would find out that he wasn't right, and that even though he thought something was silly lots of other people thought it was serious. Stalin would kill those people. Would you like to do that too, Ivanushka International?

What kind of respect is it that you'd like me to command, Ivanushka? The kind YOU have? How about showing me YOUR blog so I can set myself a goal for respectability that I might achieve one day?

You say you don't want to, I say you can't. And there we are.

You say you aren't laughing at race violence, I say you are. And there we are.