Source?
-
Features
Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk
- Thread starter boneyard bill
- Start date
Source?
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Don't hold your breath waiting for sources!
barbos
Contributor
How about you go and provide source for all that garbage you see on your TV?
Starting with Odessa massacre.
I don't really watch TV.
Do you have a source, or are you just one more form of biased media, no better than all the garbage you're denigrating?
thief of fire
Member
Isn't it true that in the old forum, you tried to claim that voters in the Crimean referendum were pressured by Russian military. but when asked for evidence you backed off?
Isn't that true?
I'm just wondering if that is going to happen again. Obviously I mean the referendum, and obviously you know that. What else could I mean. So lets cut to the chase.
Last edited:
thief of fire
Member
At least the Germans are understanding it...even if the situation is lost on the English
The information war for Ukraine" - Satirical German program "Die Anstalt" (Eng Subs)
The information war for Ukraine" - Satirical German program "Die Anstalt" (Eng Subs)
thief of fire
Member
You know the source. You know about the referendum. I know this because you were involved in discussing it before although, you did not provide any evidence for your assertions then, did you?
barbos
Contributor
Well, whatever biased media you get your "news" from
Source is people of Crimea, they voted Yes to going back to Russia.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Voting yes while under armed guard means nothing.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Oh really?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303795904579431290464167718
https://www.opendemocracy.net/civil...nging-annexation-in-crimea-referendum-that-wa
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.nl/2014/07/window-on-eurasia-crimean-resistance-to.html
The picture is not at all one of unanimous support; there is dissent. Dissent will not explode into outright violence, not right away; especially not when people are still scared. But Russia will have to walk a very tight rope to keep it to mere dissent; and I do not believe the current Russia capable of the kind of reason and empathy driven rule necessary here.
The first two links are over 6 months old discussing possible resistance which didn't come to pass. And the third is about a officials in government being reluctant about giving up dual citizenship, hardly what one considers a "resistance" to a foreign invader.
thief of fire
Member
As if you would know. Seriously how would you have any idea? You couldn't even come up with any relevant links to support your ignorant speculations
angelo
Deleted
But is Russia a foreign invader?
dystopian
Veteran Member
Actually, the first two links do no such thing. In fact, the second link explicitly lists a whole bunch of protests that took place at the time; showing quite clearly that the Crimeans *do not* "overwhelmingly" support the Russian annexation, which was the whole point I was making. As for the third; when not even the officials who are claimed to support the Russian takeover want to give up Ukrainian citizenship, the idea that the Crimeans 'overwhelmingly' don't want to leave becomes laughable.
You, seem to think that the only way to prove the Crimeans are not "overwhelmingly" in support of the annexation is if they immediately after the annexation erupted in violent resistance. Fortunately for them, reality doesn't work that way.
No, I don't think it is.
What happened was that someone claimed that the referendum, organised at short notice by invaders with guns who had a vested interest in the outcome, somehow demonstrated public opinion in Crimea. When I pointed out that it didn't, they made a desperate attempt to reverse the burden of proof, and try and get me to prove that it didn't.
It looks like that desperate scrabble for legitimacy is still going on. If you want to claim that a hasty referendum organised by the troops of the neighbouring dictatorship is a fair an accurate view of pubic opinion, the you need to make that case.
You can't, and you know you can't.
thief of fire
Member
Ok..well lets try this again. What evidence do you have of anyone invading Crimea?
There was no invasion. As has been pointed out in this thread, Russia had a long standing agreement to have troops in Crimea.
Can you explain why you insist on misrepresenting this as an invasion?
thief of fire
Member
No Russia is not a foreign invader. They had leases on the naval bases for decades to come and an agreement to have up to 25,000 troops in Crimea. But once a lie finds it's way into the western press it is hard to convince people that the TV show they watch or the newspaper they read might be wrong.
Once we get the untruths out of your post, it's not that hard.
So let's start with the untruth you told above. Or if you are going to keep insisting there was an invasion you need to provide evidence!
Once you start backing off and admit there was no "invasion" you fantasy falls apart.
Last edited:
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Wow, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that you are an attorney?? Any attorney should know the difference between leasing and owning.
dystopian
Veteran Member
An attorney should probably also know that soldiers stationed in another country don't then become *citizens* of that country; and that said lease most likely did not come with a clause allowing the soldiers to commit acts of war and seize the region for themselves (a fact that has been repeatedly pointed out to the pro-russians here, only to go ignored so they can keep claiming there was no invasion), which therefore means they *did* in fact *invade* Crimea, and that as they are not citizens of Ukraine, are *foreign* invaders.
But then again, only idiots trust attorneys to not twist the truth.