War with Russia
Discussion
Would anyone like to read through this and offer an opinion?
Taken from my Facebook feed, written by a hardcore UKipper...
"I think Sky and the BBC should stick to reading just the football results,that way they cant make things up!The terrible fire bombing of a building in Odessa,deserves the truth to be told,in order for the real culprits to be identified.According to our freedom loving media,it was a clash between rival factions,pro-Russian activists,insurgents.This is the type of deliberate newspeak,to forward the political agenda of expansionism,backed by the corrupt regimes of USA,EU and NATO.When we understand the depth to which our media has been absorbed into the European project,you understand the propaganda approach to truth,Goebals,would be proud.RT had live feed from the incident,of what actually happened.Der Speigel also reported on the massacre.The BBC called the victims,pro-Russian activists.Just exactly what is a pro-Russian activist,could it be a Ukrainian,who is fighting against fascists who stormed their democratically elected govt in Kiev,imagine if the BNP took over our parliament,don't you think there would be concerns in the provinces.The BBC take their 40 pieces of gold and express the views,not of the British people,but the Baroness Ashtons,Barrosos and Van Rumpoys of this world.When Nigel Farage said that the EU had blood on it's hands,he knew exactly who the real criminals were!!!!"
Taken from my Facebook feed, written by a hardcore UKipper...
"I think Sky and the BBC should stick to reading just the football results,that way they cant make things up!The terrible fire bombing of a building in Odessa,deserves the truth to be told,in order for the real culprits to be identified.According to our freedom loving media,it was a clash between rival factions,pro-Russian activists,insurgents.This is the type of deliberate newspeak,to forward the political agenda of expansionism,backed by the corrupt regimes of USA,EU and NATO.When we understand the depth to which our media has been absorbed into the European project,you understand the propaganda approach to truth,Goebals,would be proud.RT had live feed from the incident,of what actually happened.Der Speigel also reported on the massacre.The BBC called the victims,pro-Russian activists.Just exactly what is a pro-Russian activist,could it be a Ukrainian,who is fighting against fascists who stormed their democratically elected govt in Kiev,imagine if the BNP took over our parliament,don't you think there would be concerns in the provinces.The BBC take their 40 pieces of gold and express the views,not of the British people,but the Baroness Ashtons,Barrosos and Van Rumpoys of this world.When Nigel Farage said that the EU had blood on it's hands,he knew exactly who the real criminals were!!!!"
It's obvious what happened. People were burned alive and the Ukranian police stood by and at best watched it happen. We all know if it was the other way around Hague would already have made a statement.
As for the way the UK media are reporting it. It was only a very short time ago that they'd have had us going along to support Al Qaeda in Syria.
As for the way the UK media are reporting it. It was only a very short time ago that they'd have had us going along to support Al Qaeda in Syria.
SuperDude said:
Would anyone like to read through this and offer an opinion?
Taken from my Facebook feed, written by a hardcore UKipper...
"I think Sky and the BBC should stick to reading just the football results,that way they cant make things up!The terrible fire bombing of a building in Odessa,deserves the truth to be told,in order for the real culprits to be identified.According to our freedom loving media,it was a clash between rival factions,pro-Russian activists,insurgents.This is the type of deliberate newspeak,to forward the political agenda of expansionism,backed by the corrupt regimes of USA,EU and NATO.When we understand the depth to which our media has been absorbed into the European project,you understand the propaganda approach to truth,Goebals,would be proud.RT had live feed from the incident,of what actually happened.Der Speigel also reported on the massacre.The BBC called the victims,pro-Russian activists.Just exactly what is a pro-Russian activist,could it be a Ukrainian,who is fighting against fascists who stormed their democratically elected govt in Kiev,imagine if the BNP took over our parliament,don't you think there would be concerns in the provinces.The BBC take their 40 pieces of gold and express the views,not of the British people,but the Baroness Ashtons,Barrosos and Van Rumpoys of this world.When Nigel Farage said that the EU had blood on it's hands,he knew exactly who the real criminals were!!!!"
According to pro-russians what happened was this:Taken from my Facebook feed, written by a hardcore UKipper...
"I think Sky and the BBC should stick to reading just the football results,that way they cant make things up!The terrible fire bombing of a building in Odessa,deserves the truth to be told,in order for the real culprits to be identified.According to our freedom loving media,it was a clash between rival factions,pro-Russian activists,insurgents.This is the type of deliberate newspeak,to forward the political agenda of expansionism,backed by the corrupt regimes of USA,EU and NATO.When we understand the depth to which our media has been absorbed into the European project,you understand the propaganda approach to truth,Goebals,would be proud.RT had live feed from the incident,of what actually happened.Der Speigel also reported on the massacre.The BBC called the victims,pro-Russian activists.Just exactly what is a pro-Russian activist,could it be a Ukrainian,who is fighting against fascists who stormed their democratically elected govt in Kiev,imagine if the BNP took over our parliament,don't you think there would be concerns in the provinces.The BBC take their 40 pieces of gold and express the views,not of the British people,but the Baroness Ashtons,Barrosos and Van Rumpoys of this world.When Nigel Farage said that the EU had blood on it's hands,he knew exactly who the real criminals were!!!!"
"Peaceful activists were burned alive by neo-nazis supporters of the US/EU/NATO backed junta of Kiev."
According to pro-ukrainians what happened was this:
"Peaceful activists were shot down by thugs coming from Russia and Transnitria."
You can pick a side according to your own prejudices. If you are a politician, you can simply express how "deeply concerned" you are. If you are a Ukrainian policeman you can follow who pays you the most.
In reality at least 36 died in the fire, 6 died being shot and there are more than 150 in the hospital. And people that were living happily side by side one year ago are now venting anger and hatred at each other. And with much worse to come, I guess.
Edited by raftom on Sunday 4th May 14:11
You guys have to remember that EX USSR is awash with "traumatic pistols" these often look like the real thing but shoot rubber balls. Yes, they can kill at very close range but beyond 10-15 meters, they just hurt a lot. If those people by the cops were firing a REAL Uzi or AKSU, the pro-unity protesters would have had dozens of dead.
Nikolai Petroff said:
You guys have to remember that EX USSR is awash with "traumatic pistols" these often look like the real thing but shoot rubber balls. Yes, they can kill at very close range but beyond 10-15 meters, they just hurt a lot. If those people by the cops were firing a REAL Uzi or AKSU, the pro-unity protesters would have had dozens of dead.
exactly, finally someone pointing that outok a fair point but why would you be on either side with a non lethal gun? i dont see why in a situation like this you would have something that looks like a gun and fires like a gun but would do little more than hurt
Sadly i would imagine the pro Russians are well armed with real guns, what happened to the firearms at every police station or military base that has been seized so far, destroyed or distributed to other pro Russians as they push on?
they all have this as backup:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/prote...
Sadly i would imagine the pro Russians are well armed with real guns, what happened to the firearms at every police station or military base that has been seized so far, destroyed or distributed to other pro Russians as they push on?
they all have this as backup:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/prote...
rich85uk said:
ok a fair point but why would you be on either side with a non lethal gun? i dont see why in a situation like this you would have something that looks like a gun and fires like a gun but would do little more than hurt
Sadly i would imagine the pro Russians are well armed with real guns, what happened to the firearms at every police station or military base that has been seized so far, destroyed or distributed to other pro Russians as they push on?
they all have this as backup:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/prote...
The "anti Russians" also have guns, looted back in February. Some of the "radicals" like the Right Sector were integrated into the regular Army and given arms.Sadly i would imagine the pro Russians are well armed with real guns, what happened to the firearms at every police station or military base that has been seized so far, destroyed or distributed to other pro Russians as they push on?
they all have this as backup:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/prote...
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
We can't get a gas pipeline from Canada to Texas completed for purely political reasons; not sure we can ship gas to you lot any better at the moment. 
And what if we ever disagree with the US of A? Freedom Fries
BTW, JIm is OK.
There would be money involved, dammit! Meanwhile there's a new escalation on the internet propaganda wars with pro-russians resorting to dirty tricks again:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmykK5MCQAAYNgM.jpg:la...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmykK5MCQAAYNgM.jpg:la...
Putin's Human Rights Council Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results; Only 15% Voted For Annexation
forbes said:
The website of the “President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights” posted a blog that was quickly taken down as if it were toxic radioactive waste. According to the Council’s report about the March referendum to annex Crimea, the turnout was a maximum 30%. And of these, only half voted for annexation – meaning only 15 percent of Crimean citizens voted for annexation.
The fate of Crimea, therefore, was decided by the 15 percent of Crimeans, who voted in favor of unification with Russia (under the watchful eye of Kalashnikov-toting soldiers)...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/20...The fate of Crimea, therefore, was decided by the 15 percent of Crimeans, who voted in favor of unification with Russia (under the watchful eye of Kalashnikov-toting soldiers)...
skyrover said:
So in a democracy do we or don't we count the votes(!) of those who don't vote?And a turnout so low, those that so desperately wanted to remain part of Ukraine were kept from voting by these soldiers?
And how can one assume which way those that didn't vote would have gone had voting been mandatory?
Although the details should be investigated (another vote observed by international observers)
that's just biased and agenda laden journalism IMO.
skyrover said:
We might be waiting a while, there's not a snowballs chance in hell the Russians will allow a referendum in Crimea with full international observer support.
Than again, it's not free and fair journalism unless it's coming from RT eh?
Well it isn't me referring to RT but while you're on that subject I think you can hardly post an article like that and then sneer at RT.Than again, it's not free and fair journalism unless it's coming from RT eh?
It's OK, Euro-leaders (and others) are in Rome taking care of it all as we speak:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/west...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/west...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Indeed, Forbes, that bastion of propaganda and all round government mouthpiece Meanwhile in Russia
aljazeera said:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law censoring the use of curse words in the arts — the latest in a series of measures aimed at restricting freedom of speech and intimidating activists critical of his government.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/6/rus...And an article from the LA Times
LAtimes said:
What Vladimir Putin chooses not to know about Russian history
KGB agents are apparently not taught history, or so it would seem from Vladimir Putin's recent statement that only "God knows" how a portion of southeastern Ukraine ever became part of that country. The Russian president refers to the region as "New Russia," an old idea that has always been — and remains — an aspiration rather than a fact. Luhansk, Donetsk, Odessa and other New Russian cities have been a part of Ukraine for nearly a century. And even before that, they were never truly Russian.
A Yiddish expression held that the fires of hell burned around the city for its lack of piety.
-
It was Empress Catherine II who first articulated the ambition that this territory, which she acquired from the Ottoman Turks in the latter half of the 18th century, would become "Novorossiia." Catherine wanted her subjects to settle the new, mostly vacant land, and she did her best to lure Russian nobles into the area. But few were willing to take chances on "the wild fields," no matter what kind of deals she offered. Next, she posted fliers in Europe promising cheap land, religious freedom and exemption from taxes and military service to those who would settle in the area. Mennonite and Catholic Germans, Italians, Jews, and some Swiss, among other nationalities, accepted the invitation.
Later, Catherine's grandson, Czar Alexander I, recruited dissidents from the Ottoman Empire — Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Moldavians, Greeks, Armenians and even some Turks — to settle in New Russia as an anchor against any Ottoman attempts to reclaim it. Some of the pockets of foreign settlement were even exempted from Russian czarist rule and allowed to preserve their national languages and customs. In the end, Catherine's New Russia became home to many more non-Russians than Russians.
The area's major cities also had distinctly non-Russian roots. Luhansk was founded in the late 1700s by an Englishman, and Donetsk was established in 1865 by a Welsh entrepreneur, who built a steel mill and opened coal mines. For almost a century after its founding, the settlement was known as Yuzkovo (as close to the name of its founder, John Hughes, as the residents could manage) before being changed to Donetsk in 1961.
Early European governors of Odessa, New Russia's largest Black Sea port, helped by the czars, did much to develop its economy and welfare. But by the mid-19th century, Russia was suspicious of the city because of its foreign population. Greeks, Bulgarians, Poles and Ukrainians formed secret societies. Jews made up an increasing percentage of the population. And Nicholas I, who ruled from 1825 to 1855, called Odessa "a nest of conspirators."
Fearing the perceived lawlessness and tumult of this cosmopolitan city, Russian czars began to appoint military governors to oversee the area, and they quit paying for infrastructure there, turning instead to other Black Sea ports. Had Odessa been more Russian, it might have fared better.
Even in Soviet times, Odessa was a city low on the pecking order. Again, as in czarist days, its residents weren't given to taking edicts from the Russian government all that seriously. One never could be quite sure of Odessa's Marxist orthodoxy — after all, this was where Leon Trotsky had gone to school and where Mensheviks flourished before 1917. After the 1917 revolution, it took several years for the Bolsheviks to subdue the city.
The Soviet regime increased Russian presence in the region, but Odessa never fully embraced Moscow, and it remained a poor cousin to other Soviet cities. Food and goods were in shorter supply than elsewhere, and first-rate opera and ballet companies rarely played the gorgeous Opera House designed by Austrians in the 1880s.
On Easter Sunday this year, a Russian Orthodox group in Odessa proclaimed the formation of a Novorossiia Republic centered in Odessa. The small band named Valery Kaurov, head of the Union of Orthodox Citizens of Ukraine, president of this imaginary, religion-based republic. Taking refuge in Moscow because Ukrainian authorities have launched a criminal investigation of him, Kaurov addressed the group assembled in Odessa by Skype, imploring them "to promote this historical name, to say and write that … our land is Novorossiia — an important part of the Holy Russia."
Ironically, in the 19th century when there actually was a Novorossiia, Odessa was known for its ungodly ways. There were fewer Orthodox Churches per capita there than in any other large city in the Russian empire. And the members of a Jewish synagogue there shocked more pious Jews by installing a pipe organ. A Yiddish expression held that the fires of hell burned around the city for its lack of piety. Worldly, materialistic, commercial, impudent, entrepreneurial and ethnically diverse, Odessa was an exceptionally cosmopolitan and non-Russian city.
It's easy to understand why Putin would covet and wish to annex Odessa and other southeast Ukrainian cities, but calling them Russian cities evokes a history that never was. In the 1920s, when Vladimir Lenin made the region officially a part of Ukraine and granted the Ukrainian Socialist Republic a veneer of autonomy, he said he was doing so "to avoid Great Russian imperialism and chauvinism." Vladimir Putin clearly sees nothing wrong with these traits.
Patricia Herlihy is a professor of history emerita at Brown University and an adjunct professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies. She is the author of "Odessa: A History, 1794-1914" and "Vodka: A Global History."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-he...KGB agents are apparently not taught history, or so it would seem from Vladimir Putin's recent statement that only "God knows" how a portion of southeastern Ukraine ever became part of that country. The Russian president refers to the region as "New Russia," an old idea that has always been — and remains — an aspiration rather than a fact. Luhansk, Donetsk, Odessa and other New Russian cities have been a part of Ukraine for nearly a century. And even before that, they were never truly Russian.
A Yiddish expression held that the fires of hell burned around the city for its lack of piety.
-
It was Empress Catherine II who first articulated the ambition that this territory, which she acquired from the Ottoman Turks in the latter half of the 18th century, would become "Novorossiia." Catherine wanted her subjects to settle the new, mostly vacant land, and she did her best to lure Russian nobles into the area. But few were willing to take chances on "the wild fields," no matter what kind of deals she offered. Next, she posted fliers in Europe promising cheap land, religious freedom and exemption from taxes and military service to those who would settle in the area. Mennonite and Catholic Germans, Italians, Jews, and some Swiss, among other nationalities, accepted the invitation.
Later, Catherine's grandson, Czar Alexander I, recruited dissidents from the Ottoman Empire — Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Moldavians, Greeks, Armenians and even some Turks — to settle in New Russia as an anchor against any Ottoman attempts to reclaim it. Some of the pockets of foreign settlement were even exempted from Russian czarist rule and allowed to preserve their national languages and customs. In the end, Catherine's New Russia became home to many more non-Russians than Russians.
The area's major cities also had distinctly non-Russian roots. Luhansk was founded in the late 1700s by an Englishman, and Donetsk was established in 1865 by a Welsh entrepreneur, who built a steel mill and opened coal mines. For almost a century after its founding, the settlement was known as Yuzkovo (as close to the name of its founder, John Hughes, as the residents could manage) before being changed to Donetsk in 1961.
Early European governors of Odessa, New Russia's largest Black Sea port, helped by the czars, did much to develop its economy and welfare. But by the mid-19th century, Russia was suspicious of the city because of its foreign population. Greeks, Bulgarians, Poles and Ukrainians formed secret societies. Jews made up an increasing percentage of the population. And Nicholas I, who ruled from 1825 to 1855, called Odessa "a nest of conspirators."
Fearing the perceived lawlessness and tumult of this cosmopolitan city, Russian czars began to appoint military governors to oversee the area, and they quit paying for infrastructure there, turning instead to other Black Sea ports. Had Odessa been more Russian, it might have fared better.
Even in Soviet times, Odessa was a city low on the pecking order. Again, as in czarist days, its residents weren't given to taking edicts from the Russian government all that seriously. One never could be quite sure of Odessa's Marxist orthodoxy — after all, this was where Leon Trotsky had gone to school and where Mensheviks flourished before 1917. After the 1917 revolution, it took several years for the Bolsheviks to subdue the city.
The Soviet regime increased Russian presence in the region, but Odessa never fully embraced Moscow, and it remained a poor cousin to other Soviet cities. Food and goods were in shorter supply than elsewhere, and first-rate opera and ballet companies rarely played the gorgeous Opera House designed by Austrians in the 1880s.
On Easter Sunday this year, a Russian Orthodox group in Odessa proclaimed the formation of a Novorossiia Republic centered in Odessa. The small band named Valery Kaurov, head of the Union of Orthodox Citizens of Ukraine, president of this imaginary, religion-based republic. Taking refuge in Moscow because Ukrainian authorities have launched a criminal investigation of him, Kaurov addressed the group assembled in Odessa by Skype, imploring them "to promote this historical name, to say and write that … our land is Novorossiia — an important part of the Holy Russia."
Ironically, in the 19th century when there actually was a Novorossiia, Odessa was known for its ungodly ways. There were fewer Orthodox Churches per capita there than in any other large city in the Russian empire. And the members of a Jewish synagogue there shocked more pious Jews by installing a pipe organ. A Yiddish expression held that the fires of hell burned around the city for its lack of piety. Worldly, materialistic, commercial, impudent, entrepreneurial and ethnically diverse, Odessa was an exceptionally cosmopolitan and non-Russian city.
It's easy to understand why Putin would covet and wish to annex Odessa and other southeast Ukrainian cities, but calling them Russian cities evokes a history that never was. In the 1920s, when Vladimir Lenin made the region officially a part of Ukraine and granted the Ukrainian Socialist Republic a veneer of autonomy, he said he was doing so "to avoid Great Russian imperialism and chauvinism." Vladimir Putin clearly sees nothing wrong with these traits.
Patricia Herlihy is a professor of history emerita at Brown University and an adjunct professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies. She is the author of "Odessa: A History, 1794-1914" and "Vodka: A Global History."
Edited by skyrover on Tuesday 6th May 19:12
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What points?anonymous said:
[redacted]
He would love it in Russia then, it's practically a national pastimehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Russia
For Skyrover:
Question 1:
So in a democracy do we or don't we count the votes(!) of those who don't vote?
Question 2:
And a turnout so low, those that so desperately wanted to remain part of Ukraine were kept from voting by these soldiers?
Question 3:
And how can one assume which way those that didn't vote would have gone had voting been mandatory?
You know and I know what your Forbes article is suggesting.
Question 1:
So in a democracy do we or don't we count the votes(!) of those who don't vote?
Question 2:
And a turnout so low, those that so desperately wanted to remain part of Ukraine were kept from voting by these soldiers?
Question 3:
And how can one assume which way those that didn't vote would have gone had voting been mandatory?
You know and I know what your Forbes article is suggesting.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
A vote is meaningless unless it is fair and transparent... anonymous said:
[redacted]
Apathy, intimidation and a sense of self-preservation might be factors... lets not forget the vote was unconstitutional and had no legal mandateanonymous said:
[redacted]
We don't... ergo Russia backs off and lets Ukraine sort it's own matters out internally 
If Crimea wishes to vote, it will do so under an both Ukrainian law, and with the guidance and observance of the international community. It was denied this.anonymous said:
[redacted]
If you have a problem with the journalistic integrity of Forbes and the multitude of other sources I have posted, I suggest you send them a strongly worded letter Now a question for you... are you deliberately playing devils advocate?
Edited by skyrover on Tuesday 6th May 21:07
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff