Rongar knows english, I presume he has access to the internet, so he's probably able to receive an alternative information, right? So it's not as much of propaganda vacuum and absence of alternative sources of information as a desire to believe it.Weaver said:
Ukraine Today
- Thread starter SwadianJedi
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Wait, wut? Is that how it happened in Crimea according to Russian media?Rongar said:
Oh yeah, regarding this. Again, I still don't understand this logic when you feed separatists with loads of money, and remain your native-russian territories poor.Rongar said:Same square todaytrueten said:Mmmkay. And this is how Putin 'didn't use force' against separatists in Chechnya:
The above we can see a separative Chechnya.
And here's russian Syktyvkar city. Photos - http://zyalt.livejournal.com/1057212.html
That's why the expression: "Stop feeding Caucasus!" is so popualr in Russia. And yeah, shutting 'separatistic mouth' with money is a foul strategy, for someday you will run out with them and separatistic moods will rise again. But hey, dictators aren't used to solve problems. They used to force them to 'shut up' and in the end some new Horbachev decides to deal with this problems in a more civilized democratic way and recieves a full collapse thanks to the previous ruler's deeds.
Also, while russians being moving their APCs near ukranian border in Rostov region they've managed to create several car accidents with lethal ending. Article (rus).
Mage246
Weaver said:
Simply because you do not understand my position does not mean you should mis-characterize anything I have said as support for war. The only thing I have stated is that you are wrong when you claim that it was made under false pretext. It was poor planned, poorly executed, based on bad intelligence, and run by people with no patience for following the kind of proper diplomatic and problem-solving procedures that would have prevented them from making that mistake in the first place (and proof that it was a horrible mistake to vote these kind of people into public office). It was a travesty in conception and execution, but it wasn't false pretext. So why not just take your knee-jerk interpretation of what Americans believe and know about it and shove it up your self-righteous ass?
Rongar
Master Knight
Yep, I saw that, but it was two weeks ago and self-defense force that was in recent the Simon's videos looked different.trueten said:
Those guys appeared two weeks ago captured police station, broke windows, left it. Where are they?
Probably in the video are the same guys that on the picture. But they call them self different and look different compare to the self-defense in Slavjansk.
So who were those Ukrainian heroes that protected the base against professionally equipped soldiers?
The country should find the proof that certain person violate the law, but not blame separatists in terrorism.
Someone who attacked should be found, but not other be blamed.
Reread that I have posted above. I'm not going to post twice the same thing only because you can not read carefully.
Thanks, but I don't need it.Weaver said:
I actually get some fun when see how people accuse me in that I desire to believe if I doubt they position in which they believe.
Probably because they are evident.Weaver said:
Recently I become unsure that people actually need to have heard media to use the same arguments.
Moreover I'm starting to believe that media use already partially supported arguments, saying things that people are ready to accept.
Was it reported that Crimea was always a part of Russia and recently there were problems on Russia territory in Crimea?Wellenbrecher said:Wait, wut? Is that how it happened in Crimea according to Russian media?Rongar said:
Speaking of knee-jerk reactions, please don't go on defensive like that.Mage246 said:
I do respect you and your opinions but for me a red flag in every conversation is when one side refuses to give the opponent a benefit of the doubt from the get go. And I understand that most people have areas where they are not ready for a dialog.
For example, Jhess is a reasonable and educated person but she can go completely bonkers when you touch gender issues. You had some run ins with her and you know how frustrating it can be when she goes "Na na na, I'm not listening to arguments".
Don't take is as a personal jab. This is coming from a friend.
I think you do need it. I don't think it's good for you as a person to adopt this schadenfreude attitude when talking to us, Ukrainians.Rongar said:
What I want you to understand is that basic reasons for Russia's military invasion into our country are completely bogus.
Russians are not discriminated in Ukraine, local neo-nazi organizations are no more numerous or dangerous than neo-nazi movements in Russia proper, our current Parliament and Government are legitimate, separatism is a major crime in every more or less civilized country, including Russia, most footage about Ukraine you see in Russian news is dishonest, etc.
I'm telling you this as a Russian-speaking Ukrainian. You are being deceived big time.
To be honest I'm not exactly sure what you mean, can you rephrase that?Rongar said:Was it reported that Crimea was always a part of Russia and recently there were problems on Russia territory in Crimea?Wellenbrecher said:Wait, wut? Is that how it happened in Crimea according to Russian media?Rongar said:
But from what I heard from Russian press statements and what was shared about Russian media, then that was indeed the story they came up with. And it's utter bull****.
"Crimea was always part of Russia."Rongar said:Was it reported that Crimea was always a part of Russia and recently there were problems on Russia territory in Crimea?Wellenbrecher said:Wait, wut? Is that how it happened in Crimea according to Russian media?Rongar said:
Wat.
Wat wat wat wat.
Rongar, watch vice coverage of the Ukraine crisis, the older ones.
How long have Russian maps had Crimea as part of their nation?
Crimea being always part of Russia is as truthful a sentiment as the idea that modern Russia was born in the Kievan Rus. It's not quite ancalimon-level TURKTURKTURK but it's getting there. And apparently it is now taught in Russian school books.
Rongar, you are silly and quickly making a fool of yourself, by trying to imply that no-one here has actual knowledge of the Chechen wars. Some of us were old enough to read newspapers when the first one happened, you know. Some of us have studied them in military schools, as great examples of overconfidence meeting urban warfare. Some of us have watched hours of LiveLeak video material filmed by Russian soldiers, documenting the atrocities happening there. Or read the reports from the Committee of Soldiers Mothers' of Russia:
http://soldiers-mothers-rus.ru/index.html
The nasty **** in Chechnya compares well with the atrocities committed in Yugoslavia during the Dissolution Wars, so I guess score one for the Pan-Slavic Brotherhood!
And don't think that world's knowledge begins and ends with Chechnya. It's not like life in Dagestan is nothing but sunshine and rainbows.
Rongar, you are silly and quickly making a fool of yourself, by trying to imply that no-one here has actual knowledge of the Chechen wars. Some of us were old enough to read newspapers when the first one happened, you know. Some of us have studied them in military schools, as great examples of overconfidence meeting urban warfare. Some of us have watched hours of LiveLeak video material filmed by Russian soldiers, documenting the atrocities happening there. Or read the reports from the Committee of Soldiers Mothers' of Russia:
http://soldiers-mothers-rus.ru/index.html
The nasty **** in Chechnya compares well with the atrocities committed in Yugoslavia during the Dissolution Wars, so I guess score one for the Pan-Slavic Brotherhood!
And don't think that world's knowledge begins and ends with Chechnya. It's not like life in Dagestan is nothing but sunshine and rainbows.
Mage246
Weaver said:
This is what I'm getting at. You don't know what my position is, so you assume I don't give your position the benefit of the doubt. But the truth is exactly the opposite - you don't give my position the benefit of the doubt. My position is two-fold:
a) there is no conclusive evidence that any information was knowingly and intentionally falsified beyond circumstantial documents that are open to a wide variety of interpretations (and are basically more of an ink blot test of someone's beliefs than proof of anything), but there is plenty of documented anecdotes (admittedly a weak source of info, but also the best available) that decision-makers were blinded by ideology and pre-conceived notions, leading them to reach bad conclusions and to rely on shoddy information simply because it supported their position. There is not direct and compelling evidence that any of them were acting on a false pretext.
b) in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, the default position should be that there was no conspiracy to trick the American public and Congress into supporting a war. Not that this is impossible, but that it is essentially UNNECESSARY for this to take place in order to explain events. It is needlessly complex, and there is a logical principle called Occam's Razor wherein the most logical conclusion to draw from a situation is to take the simplest explanation that is not contradicted by evidence.
That is my position. Not that there is absolutely no possibility of a false pretext, but that the most logical explanation does not require it. And for this I am vilified as a warmonger and an ignorant fool that is being manipulated by propaganda. So yeah, I am defensive about it. You have given me cause.
The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen.Jay Rockefeller:
“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.
It goes on to say:
“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.
“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again,” Rockefeller added.
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
Additionally, the Committee issued a report on the Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The report found that the clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranians in Rome and Paris were inappropriate and mishandled from beginning to end. Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz failed to keep the Intelligence Community and the State Department appropriately informed about the meetings. The involvement of Manucher Ghobanifer and Michael Ledeen in the meetings was inappropriate. Potentially important information collected during the meetings was withheld from intelligence agencies by Pentagon officials. Finally, senior Defense Department officials cut short internal investigations of the meetings and failed to implement the recommendations of their own counterintelligence experts.
Today’s reports are the culmination of efforts that began in March 2003, when, as Vice Chairman, Senator Rockefeller initially requested an investigation into the origin of the fraudulent Niger documents. In June 2003, he was joined by all Democrats on the Committee in pushing for a full investigation into prewar intelligence, which was eventually expanded by the Committee in February 2004 to include the five phase II tasks.
The Committee released its first report on July 9, 2004, which focused primarily on the Intelligence Community’s prewar assessments of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and links to terrorism. Those findings helped lay the foundation for some of the intelligence reforms enacted into law in late 2004.
In September 2006, the Committee completed and publicly released two sections of Phase II: The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress; and Postwar Findings About Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments.
In May 2007, the Committee released the third section of Phase II: Prewar Intelligence Assessments About Postwar Iraq.
Separately, in early 2007, the Pentagon Inspector General released its own report on the intelligence activities conducted by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and also concluded that those activities were inappropriate.
Taken from the Press Release of Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775
A separate study:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-false-pretenses-led-us-to-war/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2008/01/23/5641/false-pretenses
If it comes down to a matter of giving the benefit of the doubt; whenever the world/majority is largely opposed to a military action its likely that the one engaging in the action is doing so with a lack of rational-logic or clear evidence to support the action in which case its more likely that an accusation of false pretext/pretense will be made.
If someone is strongly willing to lie or manipulate circumstantial evidence to suit their agenda for a military invasion then one inevitably does have to ask whether or not the reason(s) being given are really just some handy pretext. And lets assume the truth is that Bush didn't lie... is anyone going to loose sleep over the prick being accused of being a liar? He's facing much worse allegations as is. The same goes for Putin.
BACK ON TOPIC EDIT:
Doubts over suspected Russian SF group photo:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/world/europe/scrutiny-over-photos-said-to-tie-russia-units-to-ukraine.html?ref=world&_r=1
Also:
Vice news dispatch 29:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d6rPlH0K7o4#t=17
and Simon Ostrovsky has been freed:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/us-journalist-simon-ostrovsky-released-ukraine
http://www.newsweek.com/vice-reporter-simon-ostrovsky-freed-pro-russia-gunmen-ukraine-248535
“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.
It goes on to say:
“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.
“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again,” Rockefeller added.
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
Additionally, the Committee issued a report on the Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The report found that the clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranians in Rome and Paris were inappropriate and mishandled from beginning to end. Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz failed to keep the Intelligence Community and the State Department appropriately informed about the meetings. The involvement of Manucher Ghobanifer and Michael Ledeen in the meetings was inappropriate. Potentially important information collected during the meetings was withheld from intelligence agencies by Pentagon officials. Finally, senior Defense Department officials cut short internal investigations of the meetings and failed to implement the recommendations of their own counterintelligence experts.
Today’s reports are the culmination of efforts that began in March 2003, when, as Vice Chairman, Senator Rockefeller initially requested an investigation into the origin of the fraudulent Niger documents. In June 2003, he was joined by all Democrats on the Committee in pushing for a full investigation into prewar intelligence, which was eventually expanded by the Committee in February 2004 to include the five phase II tasks.
The Committee released its first report on July 9, 2004, which focused primarily on the Intelligence Community’s prewar assessments of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and links to terrorism. Those findings helped lay the foundation for some of the intelligence reforms enacted into law in late 2004.
In September 2006, the Committee completed and publicly released two sections of Phase II: The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress; and Postwar Findings About Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments.
In May 2007, the Committee released the third section of Phase II: Prewar Intelligence Assessments About Postwar Iraq.
Separately, in early 2007, the Pentagon Inspector General released its own report on the intelligence activities conducted by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and also concluded that those activities were inappropriate.
Taken from the Press Release of Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775
A separate study:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-false-pretenses-led-us-to-war/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2008/01/23/5641/false-pretenses
If it comes down to a matter of giving the benefit of the doubt; whenever the world/majority is largely opposed to a military action its likely that the one engaging in the action is doing so with a lack of rational-logic or clear evidence to support the action in which case its more likely that an accusation of false pretext/pretense will be made.
If someone is strongly willing to lie or manipulate circumstantial evidence to suit their agenda for a military invasion then one inevitably does have to ask whether or not the reason(s) being given are really just some handy pretext. And lets assume the truth is that Bush didn't lie... is anyone going to loose sleep over the prick being accused of being a liar? He's facing much worse allegations as is. The same goes for Putin.
BACK ON TOPIC EDIT:
Doubts over suspected Russian SF group photo:
Maxim Dondyuk, a freelance photographer who was working in Slovyansk principally for the Russian newsmagazine Russian Reporter, said that he had taken the group photograph there and posted it on his Instagram account.
“It was taken in Slovyansk,” he said in a telephone interview. “Nobody asked my permission to use this photograph.”
Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, acknowledged that the assertion that the photograph in the American briefing materials had been taken in Russia was incorrect. But she said that the photograph was included in a “draft version” of a briefing packet and that the information has since been corrected. This photograph, she said, was not among those presented by Mr. Kerry in Geneva.
“It was taken in Slovyansk,” he said in a telephone interview. “Nobody asked my permission to use this photograph.”
Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, acknowledged that the assertion that the photograph in the American briefing materials had been taken in Russia was incorrect. But she said that the photograph was included in a “draft version” of a briefing packet and that the information has since been corrected. This photograph, she said, was not among those presented by Mr. Kerry in Geneva.
Also:
Vice news dispatch 29:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d6rPlH0K7o4#t=17
and Simon Ostrovsky has been freed:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/us-journalist-simon-ostrovsky-released-ukraine
http://www.newsweek.com/vice-reporter-simon-ostrovsky-freed-pro-russia-gunmen-ukraine-248535
Why do I always read that as 'feed'rejenorst said:
Here's his after action report:
Oh yeah, we have more comparisons:
Dagestan region, Russia. Terrorists killed local deputy Musa Islavov. April 24th - During an anti-terrorist operation 4 terrorists killed. Russian POV - good
Donetsk region, Ukraine. Terrorists killed local deputy Vladymir Rybak. April 24th - During an anti-terrorist operation 5 terrorists killed. Russian POV - outrageous
Ukranian chopper got hit while an attempt to lift off from our airfield in Kramatorsk. It was under fire by 'pro-russian peaceful protesters'. Was it a gunfire or a faustpatron - dunno.
Explosion at 0:53
The pilot had enough time to evacuate. He's safe.
Still, it's not a reason to call those people terrorists and use force against them. Naha.
Explosion at 0:53
The pilot had enough time to evacuate. He's safe.
Still, it's not a reason to call those people terrorists and use force against them. Naha.
Terrorists target civilian and military but mainly civilians hence the term terrorist.trueten said:
I don't know if the combatants are lawful or not but they don't yet fit the ''Terrorist'' epitaph.
wikitionary said:
wikitionary said:
Similar threads
