• 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 troll agency

Jack London

New member
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0
Good thing there are such people as Lyudmila Savchuk! She is working hard to battle against those Russians trolls who are able to do everything to justify bloody Putin foreign policy! She must be hired by CIA to battle that Russian propaganda which conquered everything in American media! Good Job, Savchuk, I hope you will succeed!
 
Yes, it's a terrible Russian propaganda... :)
 
694e5293-133c-466e-a732-f55a61e117fc-620x372.jpeg


Russian troll factory (Internet Research Agency) at 55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg. Up to 400 employees work in 12 hour shifts 24/7 to post propaganda on Russian/foreign news sites, blogs, social networks, and message boards. Thousands of photo-shopped images are available to the trolls on dozens of webpages like this one ... ??????.??


10404341_446515335509416_608079770276903351_n.jpg


Lyudmila Savchuk (above with lawyers) a former employee of Internet Research Agency who quit in disgust and is suing for illegal hiring and employment practices. In court last week a lawyer for Internet Research Agency agreed to pay compensation to Ms. Savchuck, but she says her ultimate aim is to force the troll factory to close.
 
I wonder if this is the agency responsible for pointing out that British claims to the Falklands are not as legitimate as Russian claims to Crimea?
 
One Professional Russian Troll Tells All


dk9i.trol_png.jpg

Another former Internet Research Agency employee - Marat Burkhard -
says he was ordered by supervisors to refer to Obama as a black monkey.
He also quit in disgust after two months.
 
Did it ,please elaborate ?

I don't know and I guess you don't know.

Whoever pointed out the obvious hypocritical conflict between "claimed ownership" for Falklands and Crimea most certainly did bring up an interesting point, eh?

Not to derail, but it is good to compare the two. Which is a more legitimate claim? Are the principles of the Monroe Doctrine applicable in several cases?
 
I don't know and I guess you don't know.

Whoever pointed out the obvious hypocritical conflict between "claimed ownership" for Falklands and Crimea most certainly did bring up an interesting point, eh?

Not to derail, but it is good to compare the two. Which is a more legitimate claim? Are the principles of the Monroe Doctrine applicable in several cases?

The British. There wasn't a single Argentinian on the Falklands before their invasion and the British had held those Islands since 1774. Given there was no Argentina till it declared independence from Spain in 1816. I think thats a pretty solid claim. These Islands were uninhabited until opened up by European powers in the 16th century. Russia on the other hand is simply engaging in reconquest of land it had ceded the Ukraine and then guaranteed by treaty in 1994
 
The British. There wasn't a single Argentinian on the Falklands before their invasion and the British had held those Islands since 1774. Given there was no Argentina till it declared independence from Spain in 1816. I think thats a pretty solid claim. These Islands were uninhabited until opened up by European powers in the 16th century. Russia on the other hand is simply engaging in reconquest of land it had ceded the Ukraine and then guaranteed by treaty in 1994

Let's see, is that 1994 treaty the same one in which the US said NATO would encroach NO FARTHER to the east....?

So then, are we agreeing that the British claim to the Falklands is less legitimate than the Russian claim to Crimea?
 
I don't think there are such massive SPAM factories in other countries. It is Russia, whose strategic objective is to fill all Internet discussion forums with so much inane sh!t that meaningful Internet discussions cease to exist. It is hard time for free net. We must stop it.
 
Let's see, is that 1994 treaty the same one in which the US said NATO would encroach NO FARTHER to the east....?
There never was any such treaty

So then, are we agreeing that the British claim to the Falklands is less legitimate than the Russian claim to Crimea?

No the British claim to the Falklands is far more legitimate. There never was any historical presence or legal claim to the Falklands for Argentina

The Budapest memorandum of 1994 clearly guarantees the territorial integrity of Ukraine this includes Crimea. Russia has clearly violated that agreement.

Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory, send them to disarmament facilities in Russia, and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Ukraine kept these promises.

In return, Russia and the Western signatory countries essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state. They did so by applying the principles of territorial integrity and nonintervention in 1975 Helsinki Final Act -- a Cold War-era treaty signed by 35 states including the Soviet Union -- to an independent post-Soviet Ukraine.
 
There never was any such treaty



No the British claim to the Falklands is far more legitimate. There never was any historical presence or legal claim to the Falklands for Argentina

The Budapest memorandum of 1994 clearly guarantees the territorial integrity of Ukraine this includes Crimea. Russia has clearly violated that agreement.

Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory, send them to disarmament facilities in Russia, and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Ukraine kept these promises.

In return, Russia and the Western signatory countries essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state. They did so by applying the principles of territorial integrity and nonintervention in 1975 Helsinki Final Act -- a Cold War-era treaty signed by 35 states including the Soviet Union -- to an independent post-Soviet Ukraine.

It's funny so many people on TV are talking about that treaty with Russia that you claim doesn't exist.

I wonder if next you're going to tell me that Pat Tillman was killed by hostile fire?
 
If that is so then you will have no problem linking it.

A lot does, but not ALL the information I ingest comes by way of the internet. Guys on TV have been talking about it, how Gorbachev was seduced by the US into signing the treaty with only an implicit, not written, (a promise) that NATO would move no farther east.

He accepted their good intentions, but they deceived.

There were several senators involved in the treaty negotiations as I remember.
 
A lot does, but not ALL the information I ingest comes by way of the internet. Guys on TV have been talking about it, how Gorbachev was seduced by the US into signing the treaty with only an implicit, not written, (a promise) that NATO would move no farther east.

He accepted their good intentions, but they deceived.

There were several senators involved in the treaty negotiations as I remember.

No treaty was ever negotiated with Russia nor did Gorbachev sign one
 
Back
Top Bottom