• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russian UN ambassador comes out swinging on leaked call

The Russian propaganda machine has been on full throttle. Could easily be them playing games.

But, looking into it couldn't hurt.
 
This is the same thing the DNC does by planting surrogates at Tea Party rallies, except with bullets.

Chum the media into a frenzy by playing wolf in sheep's clothing.
 
American said:
Could be, we'll see.
Click to expand...

For those that want to go to war, and war forever, I doubt that anything you could put forward on the table would stir them from their position. The blues (new monarchists and fascists) are on the rise again in Europe, and need the support of that small but influential war wing in the United States to continue this march down a new serfdom over Europe. They will bed with anyone. Hopefully, more rational minds will prevail in the United States before we ever do their bidding again.
 
Fallenangel said:
Yes I'm familiar with the statement she made to the Telegraph, I actually already posted it few days ago here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/187797-ukraine-new-gov-behind-snipers.html#post1063000985

That is why I asked you to share the BBC, Channel 4 research that you claimed to watch/hear about.

Fallen.
Click to expand...

Do you think that there is somekind of online archive where the BBC and Channel 4 upload all their of their News broadcasts?

And even if there were, I wouldnt search through it for some runarround Russian historic revisionist!!!
 
The German said:
Do you think that there is somekind of online archive where the BBC and Channel 4 upload all their of their News broadcasts?

And even if there were, I wouldn't search through it for some runaround Russian historic revisionist!!!
Click to expand...

So... I see that you don't have any links to the "BBC/Channel 4 research" ...and you slide down to the usual idiotic bs when you were actually asked to provide them, not particularly surprising.


EDIT: Here are some extra exclamation marks in case you'd need some more in your next post - > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
So... I see that you don't have any links to the "BBC/Channel 4 research" ...and you slide down to the usual idiotic bs when you were actually asked to provide them, not particularly surprising.


EDIT: Here are some extra exclamation marks in case you'd need some more in your next post - > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Fallen.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should watch the BBC or Channel 4 News yourself instead of Russia Yesterday and boiling potatoes.

The reports by the telegraph and Die Zeit which were quoted by Channel 4 should have been enought for everyone who understand the concept of the phrase "report based on".

I am not answereable to someone who lives in an undemocratic dictatorship that is aggressive and threatening towards the rest of the world.

And certainly not if that individual is supportive of the dictatorship he lives in.

Why is it that you are on this forum anyway? Is there no Russian language forum and echochamber for the likeminded where you can waste your time? No matter how much you post, you will not convince anyone that Russia is in the right here in any possible way!
 
jmotivator said:
Because, as a former soviet state with a large number of ethnic Russians, what you really want to due is piss off the Russians who are currently invading another one of their neighbors on trumped up claims of protecting ethnic Russians.

I mean, they MIGHT be inclined to call bull**** if they thought that the US would back them if Russia rolled tanks in to their border towns. But since everyone now just assumes that Ukraine will lose Crimea rather than risk conflict, and since the LAST state to piss off Russia (Chechnya) is now part of Russia, they have to start making different calculations.
Edit: Or, the alternative (should have read more) is that the story is simply bull**** propaganda being pushed by the Russians.
Click to expand...

Chechnya, was not an independant state. It declared indpendance, and Russia used force to prevent it. Causing extensive damage in Grozny. If I am not mistaken (going by memory over 68 000 chechyens killed, 200 000 displaced (out of a population of around 1 million) during the first chechyen war I believe. (might have been second)

Stalin forcibly exiled nearly the entire population to siberia during the 30's or 40s
 
If I am not mistaken both Police and protestors were killed, by snipers, I doubt there were two different groups of snipers one shooting police and one shooting protestors.

Leaving the question which side were the snipers on?

The shooting of both protestors and the cops, indicates a desire to cause a violent reaction from at least one side, which did happen when the protestors stormed the police lines, after which the government fell.
 
The German said:
Maybe you should watch the BBC or Channel 4 News yourself instead of Russia Yesterday and boiling potatoes.
The reports by the telegraph and Die Zeit which were quoted by Channel 4 should have been enough for everyone who understand the concept of the phrase "report based on".
Click to expand...


I asked you to provide the "BBC/Channel 4 research" as you claimed to have heard/seen one, so far no links to any "research"...

The German said:
Wasn`t ignored.
I watch the British BBC and Channel 4 News on a regular basis and their research concluded that the doctor Olga in the makeshift medical camp was simply misunderstood through a translation error.
Click to expand...
...if you would have referred to the Telegraph report and not to some "research done by the BBC/Channel 4" form the beginning I wouldn't have asked you for a thing at all.

Btw. Nice backpedaling from "BBC/Channel 4 research which concluded something" to "the Telegraph report was quoted by Channel 4".
Btw 2. I prefer Sky News, especially Katie Stallard, she had some nice reports from Ukraine in the past few weeks.


The German said:
I am not answerable to someone who lives in an undemocratic dictatorship that is aggressive and threatening towards the rest of the world.
And certainly not if that individual is supportive of the dictatorship he lives in.
Why is it that you are on this forum anyway? Is there no Russian language forum and echochamber for the likeminded where you can waste your time? No matter how much you post, you will not convince anyone that Russia is in the right here in any possible way!
Click to expand...

And here we have more bs, with question and exclamation marks.

Fallen.
 
jmotivator said:
Because, as a former soviet state with a large number of ethnic Russians, what you really want to due is piss off the Russians who are currently invading another one of their neighbors on trumped up claims of protecting ethnic Russians.

I mean, they MIGHT be inclined to call bull**** if they thought that the US would back them if Russia rolled tanks in to their border towns. But since everyone now just assumes that Ukraine will lose Crimea rather than risk conflict, and since the LAST state to piss off Russia (Chechnya) is now part of Russia, they have to start making different calculations.

Edit: Or, the alternative (should have read more) is that the story is simply bull**** propaganda being pushed by the Russians.
Click to expand...

It's not an invasion no matter how many times you say so, Russia has legitimate cause to be in there, and the US should know all about trumped up claims. Why would they fear Russia if they told what they know about the snipers. That supports Russia's position.
 
Yeah, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The one piece of evidence has been retracted.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If I am not mistaken both Police and protestors were killed, by snipers, I doubt there were two different groups of snipers one shooting police and one shooting protestors.

Leaving the question which side were the snipers on?

The shooting of both protestors and the cops, indicates a desire to cause a violent reaction from at least one side, which did happen when the protestors stormed the police lines, after which the government fell.
Click to expand...

If you want a violent reaction from the protestors you shoot the protestors, if you want a more violent crackdown you shoot police. Seems like friendly fire rather than something intended, since it won't logically lead to an intended outcome if you shoot both.

Since the "evidence" (how would the doctor know who the snipers were? Wearing anti gov insignia's? An EU crest?) of anti-government forces being responsible has been retracted, the claim belongs in CT.
 
Ben K. said:
If you want a violent reaction from the protestors you shoot the protestors, if you want a more violent crackdown you shoot police. Seems like friendly fire rather than something intended, since it won't logically lead to an intended outcome if you shoot both.

Since the "evidence" (how would the doctor know who the snipers were? Wearing anti gov insignia's? An EU crest?) of anti-government forces being responsible has been retracted, the claim belongs in CT.
Click to expand...

Or if you just want a violent reaction, as a catalyst for something violent to start you shoot both

If the police start shooting the government looks bad, and loses legitimacy, if the protestors storm the barricades, and the police do nothing the government at least in this case falls, and the protestors win

The government did not need to use snipers, as if it wanted to stop the protests. A large division of riot police with tear gas, batons, dogs etc would have been a far more effective use of force. Then in the confusion shoot the visible leaders of the protestors. The moderates would have fled, the younger men who were part of the Right Sector or Svoboda would have stayed and been ideal groups to arrest during the riots
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Or if you just want a violent reaction, as a catalyst for something violent to start you shoot both

If the police start shooting the government looks bad, and loses legitimacy, if the protestors storm the barricades, and the police do nothing the government at least in this case falls, and the protestors win

The government did not need to use snipers, as if it wanted to stop the protests. A large division of riot police with tear gas, batons, dogs etc would have been a far more effective use of force. Then in the confusion shoot the visible leaders of the protestors. The moderates would have fled, the younger men who were part of the Right Sector or Svoboda would have stayed and been ideal groups to arrest during the riots
Click to expand...

What are the ends of starting something generally violent? If one suspects false flag, one group or the other is targeted not both.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Should only take a simple phone call to NSA headquarters to determine if such a call was actually made between the two parties and what the conversation was about.
Click to expand...

Quite right. Some may remember that during the Cold War the Russians shot down a Korean Airliner and immediately blamed the Americans, which many leftists also believed. Shortly thereafter the Americans released a recording of the pilot who shot the the airliner talking to the tower who had issued the order to shoot down KAL 007.

If the technology was there in the 1980's there is little doubt that these calls could be intercepted today.
 
Montecresto said:
It's not an invasion no matter how many times you say so, Russia has legitimate cause to be in there, and the US should know all about trumped up claims. Why would they fear Russia if they told what they know about the snipers. That supports Russia's position.
Click to expand...

Russia hasn't the right to invade anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom