Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[Ford]

Perhaps you'd like to link to all the US punk rockers currently serving prison sentences for "hooliganism."

I'll wait.

Since when Pussy riot are punk rockers?
But I am surprised to know that punk-rockers have immunity from from US law against hooliganism.

If I remember correctly, there is no US law against hooliganism, or at the very least if there is it has not been enforced in quite some time.

There is certainly no US law that would lead to dissident musicians being thrown into prison like there is in Russia.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/08/01/pussy_riot_on_trial_for_hooliganism_what_does_hooliganism_mean_in_russia_.html

In Russia, “hooliganism” isn’t a word for the behavior of football-loving trouble-makers, but rather a piece of English written into the country’s criminal code. And it's taken very seriously in the courtroom. Russia’s criminal code explains hooliganism in article 213, where it’s defined as “The flagrant violation of public order expressed by a clear disrespect for society.” There are two different categories: hooliganism committed with a weapon, and hooliganism committed for reasons of politics, ideology, racism, nationalism, religious hatred, or enmity with respect to any social group. In the four separate levels of crime in Russia—which can be translated as petty, average gravity, grave, and especially grave—hooliganism generally falls in the second category.

If this were the law in the US, then our prisons would have some pretty awesome bands.


At the risk of being accused of changing the subject myself, how does this relate to the discussion of what's happening in Ukraine?


Much has been said in this thread about the western media and their alleged attempts to rewrite the Ukraine conflict as one where Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine the victim, as opposed to the Russian narrative of Kiev as Nazi Germany Reborn and the hapless Russians of Crimea and Ukraine being the new Jews awaiting the 21st Century gas chambers.

To that I would ask, who are you going to believe? Western media who are perhaps overly beholden to corporate shareholders, or media from a country like Russia where political dissent is in some cases punishable by a trip to a prison camp?

 

[barbos]

Within twelve weeks, Lumumba's government was deposed in a coup during the Congo Crisis. The main reason why he was ousted from power was his opposition to Belgian-backed secession of the mineral-rich Katanga province.[4] Lumumba was subsequently imprisoned by state authorities under Joseph-Desiré Mobutu and executed by firing squad under the command of the secessionist Katangan authorities. The United Nations, which he had asked to come to the Congo, did not intervene to save him. Belgium, the United States (via the CIA), and the United Kingdom (via MI6) have all been accused of involvement in Lumumba's death

Good bob European monarchies and USA.
Hello Joe Biden son!

 

[barbos]

Since when Pussy riot are punk rockers?
But I am surprised to know that punk-rockers have immunity from from US law against hooliganism.

If I remember correctly, there is no US law against hooliganism, or at the very least if there is it has not been enforced in quite some time.

There is certainly no US law that would lead to dissident musicians being thrown into prison like there is in Russia.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/08/01/pussy_riot_on_trial_for_hooliganism_what_does_hooliganism_mean_in_russia_.html

In Russia, “hooliganism” isn’t a word for the behavior of football-loving trouble-makers, but rather a piece of English written into the country’s criminal code. And it's taken very seriously in the courtroom. Russia’s criminal code explains hooliganism in article 213, where it’s defined as “The flagrant violation of public order expressed by a clear disrespect for society.” There are two different categories: hooliganism committed with a weapon, and hooliganism committed for reasons of politics, ideology, racism, nationalism, religious hatred, or enmity with respect to any social group. In the four separate levels of crime in Russia—which can be translated as petty, average gravity, grave, and especially grave—hooliganism generally falls in the second category.

If this were the law in the US, then our prisons would have some pretty awesome bands.


At the risk of being accused of changing the subject myself, how does this relate to the discussion of what's happening in Ukraine?


Much has been said in this thread about the western media and their alleged attempts to rewrite the Ukraine conflict as one where Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine the victim, as opposed to the Russian narrative of Kiev as Nazi Germany Reborn and the hapless Russians of Crimea and Ukraine being the new Jews awaiting the 21st Century gas chambers.

To that I would ask, who are you going to believe? Western media who are perhaps overly beholden to corporate shareholders, or media from a country like Russia where political dissent is in some cases punishable by a trip to a prison camp?

Pussy Riot are not musicians and there are no laws in Russia against musicians.
Stop talking bullshit.

 

[Ford]

Pussy Riot are not musicians and there are no laws in Russia against musicians.
Stop talking bullshit.

They're not? Odd move then for them putting out music videos...


[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjI0KYl9gWs[/YOUTUBE]

 

[barbos]

On the old forum I have explained why Pussy Riot are neither musicians nor political protesters.

If you want to talk about suppression of the opposition you need to look elsewhere and there is plenty of that in Russia, it's just Pussy Riot is not it. But when americans do that they should not be selective and remember about Saakashvili and his thugs, then Saudi Arabia, Qatar all these big friends of US and McCain personally.

 

[thief of fire]

You are correct. The Russians forcibly annexed Crimea without a fight.

You forgot about the referendum. You have no evidence of force. But keep repeating it...that seems to be the American way of convincing it's own citizens.

There is in Ukraine, where America got involved.

That's right. I forgot. You believe Russia is not in any way involved in Ukraine. It is all America's fault, and Russia has done nothing but drop humanitarian supply bombs.

America started it with the coup. The head of the CIA secretly flew in and it was immediately afterwards that they started killing people in the east and even in Kiev.

Ukraine: Kiev Murders Civilians with Orwellian Western Collusion

But....this doesn't seem to upset you at all...but Crimea does. I think you watched too much Rocky and Bullwinkle

How does America convince its citizens to keep financing it's wars and bombing and even get it's citizens to fund all this and yet incessantly criticize other others?
It's powerful magic

Well see there's the difference. America has to convince its citizens.

Ok..so what convinced you to pay for Americas illegal wars?

 

[Ford]

If you want to talk about suppression of the opposition you need to look elsewhere and there is plenty of that in Russia,

And yet you ardently defend Russia.


Whether you think Pussy Riot are musicians or not, you cannot (and seem to not) deny that in Russia, dissent is dealt with harshly.


So why support such repression?

 

[Ford]

You forgot about the referendum. You have no evidence of force.

So not a single Russian soldier has set foot in Crimea?

Okay...

America started it with the coup.

Oh that's right. America invaded Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

If you want to talk about suppression of the opposition you need to look elsewhere and there is plenty of that in Russia,

And yet you ardently defend Russia.

Yes when Russia is right.

Whether you think Pussy Riot are musicians or not, you cannot (and seem to not) deny that in Russia, dissent is dealt with harshly.

Actually I can and do deny it.
"Dissent" in Russia is dealt with masterfully. Most vocal and visible opposition in Russia is made of stupid idiots

So why support such repression?

In case of Pussy Riot there was no repression because they were not political protesters.

 

[Ford]

And yet you ardently defend Russia.

Yes when Russia is right.

I've not seen you calling out Russia for being wrong.

"Dissent" in Russia is dealt with masterfully.

So you think prison camps are awesome. Duly noted.

 

[angelo]

Modern Russia no longer have Gulags do they?

 

[thief of fire]

Modern Russia no longer has Gulags do they?

No. Russia has moved away from that, America is moving into it.
Now in America we have secret courts, secret rendition and locking people up without any trial. But please don't criticize the "exceptional nation".

 

[thief of fire]

It's useful to have threads like this, as a reference. If anyone ever asks me who is arguing that Russia is in the right, we now have something to show them. I think the quality of the posts here really speak for themselves.

The more I think about what you have to say on this topic, the more I am puzzled. Most of the time you make, what appear to me to very intelligent well thought out even principled posts. However here, on this topic, you appear to just snipe.
I'm interested, seriously, in the light of other things you post, to understand where you are coming from.
Can I humbly ask you to to explain?

 

[Togo]

Sure. In general what I look for is an argument that makes sense. Whether I agree with the arguer or not makes less difference than whether it is well put together. A decent argument can be used again, it can go around the world, and be used with people we've never met. It changes the world. Whether I agree or not, it's significant, and I can spread it, or try and find a problem with it. A rubbish argument, by contrast, is useless. It doesn't convince anyone, it usually undermines the point being made, and there's no earthly point in doing anything with it.

When this thread started, there were some serious points being made. Not very convincing ones, I thought, but at least people were trying to build a case. By this stage, however, it's becoming apparent that not only is there no coherent argument behind the points that were being made, but that the opinion you're pushing was never based on those points in the first place. I understand that you find US media appalling - so do I. I understand that you are worried about right-wing extremists in the new regime in Kiev, so am I. I understand that you think that Russia has a valid security concern, and I think there's a point to be made there.

But if you're stuck on trying to make out that an armed military takeover of a neighbouring region isn't an invasion, that a hasty referendum held by armed soldiers producing a suspiciously high 93% approval rate is somehow a demonstration of public opinion, and that the suppression of internal dissent somehow isn't political, then we're kinda done. Barbos has already abandoned argument entirely in favour of just chanting at people, and you're just trying to criticise America as if it made any kind of difference to the Russian occupation of eastern Ukraine whether the US has a high incarceration rate or corrupt politicians.

I'm asking you to have a good hard look at the arguments you're pushing. Not the position you hold, the arguments. And ask yourself if even you would find them convincing. Because at the moment it just looks like a mess.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Care to present a rationally constructed argument demonstrating that the Russian military stationed in Crimea did not violate article 6 of the Treaty of Partition? Or are you and Barbos going to persist in emitting claims which do not address that point? As to quote mining (as you just did), it usually reflects the intent to dismiss context.

Why don't you go first and find these WMD in Iraq.

I strongly opposed a US military intervention in Irak. I strongly supported the position of the government of my country of citizenship and origin, France. Need I to remind you of the stated position of the French government strongly opposing a military intervention in Irak and further not buying the content of the alleged intel report supposedly demonstrating evidence of the presence of WMD in Irak? Are you going to pursue to goad and bait me with such absurd comments?

 

[Sabine Grant]

Care to present a rationally constructed argument demonstrating that the Russian military stationed in Crimea did not violate article 6 of the Treaty of Partition?

My Russian is a bit rusty, but I think the answer you just got is "nyet."

Oh as I stated earlier, I was not going to hold my breath as to barbos addressing that point which I detailed several times to facilitate his comprehending the nature of it all. Now it has also become clear in view of that inane reply that barbos *thinks* that anyone being critical of the activities of the Russian military personnel stationed in Crimea must mean that they were supportive of a military invasion in Irak and further bought into the belief that there were WMD in Irak destined to fall in the hands of extremist terrorist factions. To also note the fact that he confuses being a legal resident in the US while being a foreign national to mean being someone affected by American nationalism and drooling over every decision made by the US government, addressing foreign policies and military interventionism.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Since you keep failing to connect :

You need to take responsibility for the failure to connect and stop shifting the blame. I have told you why the situations are different. All you do is keep pointing to the similarities and avoiding the differences.
What you are doing is essentially saying "oranges and apples are both round...oranges and apples both have seeds, therefore they are the same".
I'm saying oranges and apples may have similarities but that doesn't make them the same fruit.

And more quote mining...while once more evading or avoiding formulating any opinion as to whether or not the Russian military personnel stationed in Crimea violated the terms and conditions clearly cited in Article 6 of the Partition Treaty.

What could be your motivation to NOT formulate such opinion?

 

[Duke Leto]

I'm sure someone has already observed this, but the thread title is kinda funny if you read it as the rebels helpfully showing the Ukrainians a route to where they were supposed to be going.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Care to present a rationally constructed argument demonstrating that the Russian military stationed in Crimea did not violate article 6 of the Treaty of Partition? Or are you and Barbos going to persist in emitting claims which do not address that point? As to quote mining (as you just did), it usually reflects the intent to dismiss context.

Why don't you go first and find these WMD in Iraq.

Is it your position that no citizen in the world can complain about Russian aggression due to the US aggression?

 

[thief of fire]

Sure. In general what I look for is an argument that makes sense. Whether I agree with the arguer or not makes less difference than whether it is well put together. A decent argument can be used again, it can go around the world, and be used with people we've never met. It changes the world. Whether I agree or not, it's significant, and I can spread it, or try and find a problem with it. A rubbish argument, by contrast, is useless. It doesn't convince anyone, it usually undermines the point being made, and there's no earthly point in doing anything with it.

When this thread started, there were some serious points being made. Not very convincing ones, I thought, but at least people were trying to build a case. By this stage, however, it's becoming apparent that not only is there no coherent argument behind the points that were being made, but that the opinion you're pushing was never based on those points in the first place. I understand that you find US media appalling - so do I. I understand that you are worried about right-wing extremists in the new regime in Kiev, so am I. I understand that you think that Russia has a valid security concern, and I think there's a point to be made there.

But if you're stuck on trying to make out that an armed military takeover of a neighbouring region isn't an invasion, that a hasty referendum held by armed soldiers producing a suspiciously high 93% approval rate is somehow a demonstration of public opinion, and that the suppression of internal dissent somehow isn't political, then we're kinda done. Barbos has already abandoned argument entirely in favour of just chanting at people, and you're just trying to criticise America as if it made any kind of difference to the Russian occupation of eastern Ukraine whether the US has a high incarceration rate or corrupt politicians.

I'm asking you to have a good hard look at the arguments you're pushing. Not the position you hold, the arguments. And ask yourself if even you would find them convincing. Because at the moment it just looks like a mess.

No ..I was more interested in why you hold the position you held before this thread started. You had much the same views and sniping in the previous forum, so your views on this issue are from way before this thread. How did you arrive at your position...and what is your position on the Ukraine? It seemed to me,that when you began to post on this and related topics in the old forum, you began with an anti-Russian stance. You never made arguments about it, and it was that that surprised me then. It surprised me because normally in my experience here and on that forum you would have made arguments and not just sniped. And now seeing you doing it again, I just wondered how you came to your views. Nothing really to do with this thread.
Thanks
But know considering that Russia already had troops there. Considering that they had just uncovered evidence that the US and NATO had backed a coup in Kiev with large Neo Nazi elements I don't consider it an invasion.
And I consider it hypocrisy for so many here to be screeching about it when they never complain about real invasions. They aonly complain about this faux invasion.
It's amusing.