7 ms·

> why is it OK for the West to support regime that kills Ukrainian civilians en masse. Why do you try to imply that identifying pro-Putin shills is equivalent

by mpyne 12y ago

> why is it OK for the West to support regime that kills Ukrainian civilians en masse. Why do you try to imply that identifying pro-Putin shills is equivalent to supporting "a [Ukrainian] regime that kills Ukrainian civilians en masse"? Assuming your supposition is true for now, why do you not go further and think to imply that these civilians would not be getting killed en masse if Putin would withdraw forces of the Russian Federation from the sovereign territory [1] of Ukraine? History shows that the truest way to harm civilians in conflict between groups that are not trying to kill civilians (either directly through systemic action or indirectly through things like famine) is to prolong the armed conflict by interceding on behalf of one side or the other. But even if you're completely right and not involuntarily affected by propaganda yourself, just because someone tries to keep a comment board free of "shills" of all types doesn't mean someone is necessarily aligned with any side, which is an issue you appear to be conflating here. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

pipy 12y ago
> Why do you not go further and think to imply that these civilians would not be getting killed en masse if Putin would withdraw forces of the Russian Federation from the sovereign territory of Ukraine? Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units. > History shows that the truest way to harm civilians in conflict between groups that are not trying to kill civilians (either directly through systemic action or indirectly through things like famine) is to prolong the armed conflict by interceding on behalf of one side or the other. So you say that Russia should abandon support of people of Donetsk and Luhansk and leave them at the mercy of Kiev government, who is committing crimes against them? [1] I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2]. And he didn't get fined or jailed for these words, or even challenged by the TV host. If this is not Fascism, I don't know what is. Why don't you ask questions such as: who started this mess? What has Russia done to stop it? What has the West done to stop it? [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-hawks-about-kievs-atrocities http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCD4RS9LsTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCD4RS9LsTI
- mpyne 12y ago
  > Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units. Or in other words, Russian military forces have invaded a neighboring nation, unless there is permission from Kiev for such uniformed armed forces to be on the sovereign territory of Ukraine?.... As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory. So, yes, I would suggest Russia should "abandon" the people of Donetsk and Luhansk (and for that matter, Crimea), return to its own sovereign territory, and then the fighting will stop as there will quickly be no hostile forces to launch artillery or air strikes against. You implied with that link [1] that Russia intervened only after Kiev started committing atrocities against people in Donetsk and Luhansk, but the order appears to be completely opposite. > I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2]. > And he didn't get fined or jailed for this words, or even challenged by the TV host. He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"? Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis. And either way, are you trying to imply that some random asshole on T.V. spouting their stupid backward opinion about a million people he's never met, is justification enough to invade the sovereign territory of another nation. I mean, even Bush 43 tried to put a better case together than that when he went off to disaster in Iraq...
  - pipy 12y ago
    > As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory. No, it doesn't. Because there is no evidence of massive Russian troop presence, not to my knowledge. This is why you cannot attribute the sheer scale of Ukrainian Government actions to this issue. I will quote the article for your convenience: Poroshenko’s “peace plan” and June 21 cease-fire may have seemed such an opportunity, except for their two core conditions: fighters in the southeast first had to “lay down their arms,” and he alone would decide with whom to negotiate peace. The terms seemed more akin to conditions of surrender, and were probably the real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 and intensified Kiev’s assault on eastern cities, initially on the smaller towns of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which their defenders abandoned—to prevent more civilian casualities, they said—on July 5–6. [1] The fact that there is a genuine insurgency by the Eastern Ukrainians that is not attributable to Russian influence has been supported by multiple experts from different countries. [2] Even the sociologist that gets his money from US State Department says that: "And the polls which were done in the first half of [May--and?] it means after massacre in Odessa and after very brutal attack on Mariupol by Ukrainian forces, they were showing that at least even in Donbass there are various--some sort of support for the claims of separatists, and the people in Donbas saw their seizure of governmental buildings as people's [incompr.] not as a terrorist act, not as a Russian intervention. But this were the public opinion in Donbass." [3] >He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"? OK, for me it was too emotional to claim this and to talk about this TV show. [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-hawks-about-kievs-atrocities http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw... [2] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=958 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=... [3] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12047 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
pessimizer 12y ago
>Why do you try to imply that identifying pro-Putin shills Identifying pro-Putin shills is not what's being done here. This is just accusing people that don't agree with everything said about Russia and the depiction in the US media of the current conflict in Ukraine of being Russian shills. I remember when people who questioned the Iraq war had to constantly defend themselves from accusations of being terrorist shills. This has the exact same chilling effect. edit: I am honestly interested in evidence of shill posting. I enjoy the detective work. If your evidence of shilling is that you think that the opinions people hold could only be held by shills, you're just stifling dissent in the traditional way that it has always been done. It's no more noble or complex than that.
- pipy 12y ago
  @pessimizer, if you are interested: 1. You can provide me with your disposable one-time Gmail address (needed for GA). 2. I will send you my real name, give you temporary access to Google Analytics account for the website and some selected Google-translated pages from it. Possibly provide more information if needed. 3. You can support that I am not a shill in this discussion and that my claim about the law in OP affecting me is true.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    I don't think in any way that you are a shill. And if you were, it wouldn't affect the validity of your arguments in any way. Shills only rise to the level of concern to me if they drown out all discussion that disagrees with them - and people who do that don't even have to be paid for me to consider them shills. i.e I already support that you aren't a shill, and people who are interested in journalism or the protection of freedom of expression would do well by listening to your own experience in your own country under your own country's laws rather than poisoning the well with accusations (and no evidence.)
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    It's very sad that this should even be required. What a nonsense.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
The Ukraine forces do appear to be using unguided grad rockets in areas where they end up hitting civilians, which is a war crime. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-... The insurgents are also accused of using grads, but this whole thing is far from being one sided.

by mpyne 12y ago

pipy 12y ago

> Why do you not go further and think to imply that these civilians would not be getting killed en masse if Putin would withdraw forces of the Russian Federation from the sovereign territory of Ukraine? Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units. > History shows that the truest way to harm civilians in conflict between groups that are not trying to kill civilians (either directly through systemic action or indirectly through things like famine) is to prolong the armed conflict by interceding on behalf of one side or the other. So you say that Russia should abandon support of people of Donetsk and Luhansk and leave them at the mercy of Kiev government, who is committing crimes against them? [1] I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2]. And he didn't get fined or jailed for these words, or even challenged by the TV host. If this is not Fascism, I don't know what is. Why don't you ask questions such as: who started this mess? What has Russia done to stop it? What has the West done to stop it? [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-hawks-about-kievs-atrocities http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCD4RS9LsTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCD4RS9LsTI

mpyne 12y ago
> Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units. Or in other words, Russian military forces have invaded a neighboring nation, unless there is permission from Kiev for such uniformed armed forces to be on the sovereign territory of Ukraine?.... As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory. So, yes, I would suggest Russia should "abandon" the people of Donetsk and Luhansk (and for that matter, Crimea), return to its own sovereign territory, and then the fighting will stop as there will quickly be no hostile forces to launch artillery or air strikes against. You implied with that link [1] that Russia intervened only after Kiev started committing atrocities against people in Donetsk and Luhansk, but the order appears to be completely opposite. > I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2]. > And he didn't get fined or jailed for this words, or even challenged by the TV host. He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"? Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis. And either way, are you trying to imply that some random asshole on T.V. spouting their stupid backward opinion about a million people he's never met, is justification enough to invade the sovereign territory of another nation. I mean, even Bush 43 tried to put a better case together than that when he went off to disaster in Iraq...
- pipy 12y ago
  > As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory. No, it doesn't. Because there is no evidence of massive Russian troop presence, not to my knowledge. This is why you cannot attribute the sheer scale of Ukrainian Government actions to this issue. I will quote the article for your convenience: Poroshenko’s “peace plan” and June 21 cease-fire may have seemed such an opportunity, except for their two core conditions: fighters in the southeast first had to “lay down their arms,” and he alone would decide with whom to negotiate peace. The terms seemed more akin to conditions of surrender, and were probably the real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 and intensified Kiev’s assault on eastern cities, initially on the smaller towns of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which their defenders abandoned—to prevent more civilian casualities, they said—on July 5–6. [1] The fact that there is a genuine insurgency by the Eastern Ukrainians that is not attributable to Russian influence has been supported by multiple experts from different countries. [2] Even the sociologist that gets his money from US State Department says that: "And the polls which were done in the first half of [May--and?] it means after massacre in Odessa and after very brutal attack on Mariupol by Ukrainian forces, they were showing that at least even in Donbass there are various--some sort of support for the claims of separatists, and the people in Donbas saw their seizure of governmental buildings as people's [incompr.] not as a terrorist act, not as a Russian intervention. But this were the public opinion in Donbass." [3] >He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"? OK, for me it was too emotional to claim this and to talk about this TV show. [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-hawks-about-kievs-atrocities http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw... [2] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=958 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=... [3] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12047 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...

pessimizer 12y ago

>Why do you try to imply that identifying pro-Putin shills Identifying pro-Putin shills is not what's being done here. This is just accusing people that don't agree with everything said about Russia and the depiction in the US media of the current conflict in Ukraine of being Russian shills. I remember when people who questioned the Iraq war had to constantly defend themselves from accusations of being terrorist shills. This has the exact same chilling effect. edit: I am honestly interested in evidence of shill posting. I enjoy the detective work. If your evidence of shilling is that you think that the opinions people hold could only be held by shills, you're just stifling dissent in the traditional way that it has always been done. It's no more noble or complex than that.

pipy 12y ago
@pessimizer, if you are interested: 1. You can provide me with your disposable one-time Gmail address (needed for GA). 2. I will send you my real name, give you temporary access to Google Analytics account for the website and some selected Google-translated pages from it. Possibly provide more information if needed. 3. You can support that I am not a shill in this discussion and that my claim about the law in OP affecting me is true.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  I don't think in any way that you are a shill. And if you were, it wouldn't affect the validity of your arguments in any way. Shills only rise to the level of concern to me if they drown out all discussion that disagrees with them - and people who do that don't even have to be paid for me to consider them shills. i.e I already support that you aren't a shill, and people who are interested in journalism or the protection of freedom of expression would do well by listening to your own experience in your own country under your own country's laws rather than poisoning the well with accusations (and no evidence.)
- jacquesm 12y ago
  It's very sad that this should even be required. What a nonsense.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

The Ukraine forces do appear to be using unguided grad rockets in areas where they end up hitting civilians, which is a war crime. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-... The insurgents are also accused of using grads, but this whole thing is far from being one sided.