Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[OUTLAW 09]

mirhond---what argument?---the only one you seem to throw out is the Nazi argument that all of the Ukraine are Nazi's---and yet you refuse to respond to the question on just why you accept Nazi's in the Crimea but when they are in the Ukraine you flip out.

Cut out the sidestep in your double standards comment---it was just sidestepping--you simply did not answer a rather direct question did you not?

Come on man ---get one argument at least correct and do not try to create an argument that really is not one by trying to impress yourself.

1. you still have not stated why you accept Nazi's in the Crimea---strange double standard for a country that claims that it was a "mistreated Russian population at the hands of Ukrainian Nazi's" that triggered this whole problem

2. you use a newspaper article to quote the "mistreatment of Ukrainian Jews" when the article said the opposite and yet you persist in only taking "selected" sentences that you perceive supports your view and YET overlook the entire article---GO back and reread your own article.

3. you claim to be Russian yet know no political sayings that would reflect you even understand your own society and its development or yet grew up in that society---maybe you are just apolitical which does happen these days and is OK

4. you provide a photo that yet anyone could have created--as it is not dated which happens with most digital cameras these days-did you see the leg protection worn by one of the pictured men--- was exactly that worn by the Burkat----you did see that right?

5. for every article you find I can show you an article written by a number of individuals many of whom were Ukrainian Afghanistan veterans stating that there have been over 21 reports of Russian Spetnaz personnel inside the Ukraine---from your own great research you did see those reports correct?

So come on mirhond get real---restate each argument in a coherent fashion, and provide then your evidence tied to each of your so called arguments point by point using 1, then 2, then 3 because right now you are all over the map my friend.

EXAMPLE:---You beat up on Ukrainian neo Nazi's but then when confronted with "evidence" as you call it which some of us would call reality then you shift your response and sidestep---come on mirhond stay with one argument and then counter what you get as a response back otherwise one would call what you are doing as misinformation nothing more nothing less my friend. The sentence that started with "Are they also extreme..... is a great example of how you suddenly change directions when confronted with a counter point to your initial argument.

Is that what they taught you in debate/journalism/military classes?

"OK, you spotted a dozen of bad guys, but what about other observers? Are they also extreme right or left or pro-Russian or in other way unreliable? If no, well, it's a spotlight fallacy".

"Anyway, I'd be grateful if you at least try to falsify my arguments and disprove evidences which I posted here."

[OUTLAW 09]

kaur---reference the newspaper article;

1. first of all no US intelligence brigade which is what the first reporting called it ie 66 MI Group has been moved anyway outside of Germany--that is not how the US Army works---you would have seen reporting out of Germany indicating the movement of a brigade .

By the way a brigade is approximately anywhere from 2500 to 4000 individuals and you certainly would have had Ukrainian reporting if that many Americans had showed up.

2. again the only photo depicted in the article was one of a flying UAV/drone when in fact Restec claimed to actually have downed it---if one has it then show it which they did not which makes it a false flag misinformation attempt by the KGB/FSB

3. when Restec quoted the actual designation of the UAV/drone (it was what we call the Hunter--by the way the Hunter is actually assigned to a Division not a brigade another mistake in the article and showed the only photo (a flying drone) which depicted a drone with missiles-- the Hunter does not and has never carried missiles

If you look at misinformation it comes in three different flavors white, grey and black---this report is in the grey area is it attempts to mix truth with falsehoods. IE drone/missiles/US intelligence/moved to Ukraine to support neo Nazi's that illegally took over the government/threatening the Crimea.

All in order to prove to the Crimean's and Russians that see NATO and the US is causing the entire problem and thus are the core threat and are supporting as well all those neo Nazi's in the Ukraine who are "beating up and mistreating our loyal Russian brothers who need protection".

In some aspects this is the same technique that mirhond who has been blogging here is using. First setting an argument, then shifting when challenged and then resetting the initial argument when it was responded to---always moving the argument and supporting evidence is one element of a misinformation campaign all the while still trying to make it sound like neo Nazi's were the cause for everything.

[jmm99]

I participated in 2011 winter protests, so when I came closer to a line of internal security troops, I discovered some dead-eyed guys who will spray the crowd with automatic gunfire without second thought. So, I'am quit.

Once upon a time in the West ...



Admittedly, we suck at the Art of Coercion.

Regards

Mike

[kaur]

Firn and Outlaw, thanks for comments.

Couple more observers.

Zhdanok became politically active in the late 1980s, at first a member of the Popular Front, she soon became one of the leaders of the Interfront, a political organization opposing Latvia's independence from the Soviet Union and market reforms. Prior to that, she taught mathematics at the University of Latvia, where she received her doctorate in mathematics in 1992. In 1989, she was elected to the Riga city Soviet, and in 1990, to the Supreme Soviet of the Latvian SSR. Zhdanok was also active with the Communist Party of Latvia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatjana_%C5%BDdanoka

Bckman

Nashi protests in Helsinki[edit]

Bckman arranged the "Nashi-protest" on 23 March 2009. The handful of demonstrators were the focus of attention for about 40 representatives of the media.[38]
In March 2009 Bckman as part of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee arranged a series of protests in Helsinki attended by activists of Russian Nashi, Night Watch, against what they called the opening [of] a new anti-Russian front of information warfare on the territory of Finland by [the] Estonian embassy. Also Abdullah Tammi and his followers from the prospective Finnish Islamic Party participated. The protests were aimed against seminars, against a book about the Soviet occupation of Estonia, and against films presented by the Estonian embassy in Finland, especially the film Soviet Story by Edvins Snore.[38] In media commentaries for Swedish, Finnish and Russian press, television and radio, Bckman claimed that the Soviet Union did not occupy Estonia, and belittled the significance of the Soviet deportations from Estonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_B%C3%A4ckman

[carl]

95% vote in Crimea for becoming part of the siloviki state. Putin and the boys aren't even trying to make it look good anymore, it's just a straight up power play.

[AdamG]

Has Putin begun undoing the collapse of the Soviet Union, much like Stalin did to undo the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

Many Americans have trouble understanding modern Russia or leader Vladimir Putin. That’s in good part because they have little or no understanding of Russia’s history or geopolitics.

“The Soviets Union will return” I wrote in 1991 after the collapse of the USSR deprived the Russian imperium of a third of its territory, almost half its people and much of its world power.

A similar disaster for Russia occurred in 1918 at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Defeated by the German-Austrian-Bulgarian-Turkish Central Powers in World War I and racked by revolution, Lenin’s new Bolshevik regime bowed to German demands to hand over the Baltic states and allow Ukraine to become independent.

As soon as Josef Stalin consolidated power, he began undoing the Brest-Litovsk surrender. The Baltic states, Ukraine, the southern Caucasus and parts of “Greater Romania” were reoccupied. Half of Poland again fell under Russian control. Stalin restored his nation to its pre-war 1914 borders, killing millions in the process.

http://www.unz.com/emargolis/another...uss-in-crimea/

[mirhond]

the only one you seem to throw out is the Nazi argument that all of the Ukraine are Nazi's---and yet you refuse to respond to the question on just why you accept Nazi's in the Crimea but when they are in the Ukraine you flip out.

1. Straw Man Fallacy again. Show me the exact quotation where I call all Ukrainian Nazis.
2. From what premiss you deducted that I accepted "Nazi's in the Crimea"?

Cut out the sidestep in your double standards comment---it was just sidestepping--you simply did not answer a rather direct question did you not?

OK, you are right, it was a sidestep. So, your question is

how it is "possible" that while Russia condemns neo Nazi's and radical right wingers in the Ukraine the following neo Nazi's and radical right wingers participated in "democratic" elections in the Crimea

, right?

Well, its just happened. How? By will of the political leaders. You may question the reality, but it is here. Your question is rethoric. Is my answer satisfactory? Besides, why you didn't just asked "why" it's happened?

Come on man ---get one argument at least correct.

I already gave you one.

So, Putin just spared two million people from civil war?

You may try to falsify this argument, for instance. And don't ask me to reword this claim, so that you can easily attack it, I'am not going to make your job so easy (I myself see the flaw in that claim, why you, "old and expiriensed man" fail to see it?)

you use a newspaper article to quote the "mistreatment of Ukrainian Jews" when the article said the opposite and yet you persist in only taking "selected" sentences that you perceive supports your view and YET overlook the entire article---GO back and reread your own article.

OK, you caught me, I was manipulating the context.

you claim to be Russian yet know no political sayings that would reflect you even understand your own society and its development or yet grew up in that society---maybe you are just apolitical which does happen these days and is OK

1. By Gods, why I OUGHT to know THAT particular saying from the days of yore?
2. What kind of alternative logic you use again to to deduct my cluelesness in current affairs from my ignorance of particular saying?

you provide a photo that yet anyone could have created--as it is not dated which happens with most digital cameras these days-did you see the leg protection worn by one of the pictured men--- was exactly that worn by the Burkat----you did see that right?

1.I'll give you a hint - you may SWITCH OFF that feature on camera
2. Obviously that guy got leg gear from dead body of Berkut, or bought it in the shop. Why don't you ask where is he got his armband?

for every article you find I can show you an article written by a number of individuals many of whom were Ukrainian Afghanistan veterans stating that there have been over 21 reports of Russian Spetnaz personnel inside the Ukraine---from your own great research you did see those reports correct?

OK, provide at least one link, non-partisan and bull$hit-free.

EXAMPLE:---You beat up on Ukrainian neo Nazi's but then when confronted with "evidence" as you call it which some of us would call reality then you shift your response and sidestep---come on mirhond stay with one argument and then counter what you get as a response back otherwise one would call what you are doing as misinformation nothing more nothing less my friend. The sentence that started with "Are they also extreme..... is a great example of how you suddenly change directions when confronted with a counter point to your initial argument.

I lost your point. Example of what? What "evidence" are you talking about? from what I sidestepped?
Give a link or quotation, as I do every time I post anything, have some quotation discipline.

Is that what they taught you in debate/journalism/military classes?
"OK, you spotted a dozen of bad guys, but what about other observers? Are they also extreme right or left or pro-Russian or in other way unreliable? If no, well, it's a spotlight fallacy".
"Anyway, I'd be grateful if you at least try to falsify my arguments and disprove evidences which I posted here."

1. Who are "they"? No I'am self educated, thanks to Eliezer Yudkovski and Paul Graham.
2. What part of my answer you don't like and consider sidestepping? Please explain. You posted a list with a dosen right/Nazi international observers - OK, I trust you blindly, they are the "bad guys", then I asked you about other observers - for no answer. So, which rule prohibits me from asking a clarification question and why is it sidestepping?

upd. Enjoy another video:
Ukrainian BMD rolling over pro-Russian civilians somewhere around Doneztk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3c2e-8ooqk

Disclaimer: nobody got killed or hurt, just a little psycological damage. May be it's because none of those common folks wants to be a dead hero.