Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

jimeryan22

robindch wrote: »

It's a little rich for the Russians to want balance. In Russia, the majority of the media are state-controlled directly or indirectly and the Kievan authorities are portrayed as neo-Nazis and the {Russian army}|{local, self-organized militias wearing Russian army uniforms with the Russian bit obscured, holding Russian army weapons and driving around in Russian army vehicles registered to the, uh, Russian army} are portrayed as brave defenders of a persecuted minority.

Keep hearing this state run media bull.. Erh. It's the same everywhere else, America has state paid propaganda as well CNN, cnbc, etc. If you think our media is any different you really are kidding yourself

jimeryan22

robindch wrote: »

On the 18th Feb Yanokovich pulled some kind of parliamentary trick under which the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, was not allowed to vote on whether to return to the 2004 version of a 1996 constitution. Yanukovich had brought in deeply unpopular constitutional amendments in 2010 which granted him almost dictatorial powers. The parliamentary vote was almost certain to have passed, as Yanukovich had little or no support in parliament at that point, his own party having largely abandoned him. On hearing of the trick, protesters took to the street and rioted; Yanukovich deployed snipers against them the following two days, perhaps 100 were

No yanukovich did not deploy the snipers, as I'm sure everybody knows by this point.. And I haven't seen ANY retractions of statements to the contrary by any of commentators that were so SURE it was...

robindch

jimeryan22 wrote: »

If you think our media is any different you really are kidding yourself

Are you saying that, say, the BBC has similar or identical editorial policies to Russia Today? What exactly have you read/watched from the BBC that makes you think that?

jimeryan22 wrote: »

No yanukovich did not deploy the snipers, as I'm sure everybody knows by this point.

Well, the current administration seems to think he did and has produced quite a lot of evidence to suggest he was.

And are you really suggesting that Yanukovich was sitting in the presidential palace, perhaps 200m from where snipers were deployed, presumably following the massive outpouring of media on the deaths as they happened, and was not controlling it?

jimeryan22

robindch wrote: »

Are you saying that, say, the BBC has similar or identical editorial policies to Russia Today? What exactly have you read/watched from the BBC that makes you think that?Well, the current administration seems to think he did and has produced quite a lot of evidence to suggest he was.

And are you really suggesting that Yanukovich was sitting in the presidential palace, perhaps 200m from where snipers were deployed, presumably following the massive outpouring of media on the deaths as they happened, and was not controlling it?

No1.. The bbc is not our media, we're in Ireland not the uk...
No2.. Current administration..? That's a good one.. You mean the banker that was undemorcratically selected..? And the hard right nuts that surround him..? The same people talking of nuking Russians..? Taking up guns and shooting them all..? Those excuses for human beings you mean...Is that who you mean..? And I suggested none of what you just said, so don't put words in my mouth..

jimeryan22

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/03/06/353489/snipers-for-us-regime-change-in-ukraine/

jimeryan22

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/05/08/chris-matthews-and-msnbc-the-toilet-bowl-of-broadcast-journalism/

http://www.commieblaster.com/misinformation/media.html

jimeryan22

Oh and seeing as YOU mentioned the bbc.. Yes, they are also state run, therefore have a certain agenda, rather than just, reporting facts like they're all supposed to

http://gigaom.com/2012/11/12/do-we-really-need-state-funded-news-entities-like-the-bbc-any-more/

robindch

Your views would come across as a little more coherent if, in your rush to condemn state-control of media and praise responsible journalism, you avoided quoting Iranian state-sponsored telly and paranoid conspiracy websites in strong primary colors.

//sheesh

jimeryan22

robindch wrote: »

Your views would come across as a little more coherent if, in your rush to condemn state-control of media and praise responsible journalism, you avoided quoting Iranian state-sponsored telly and paranoid conspiracy websites in strong primary colors.

//sheesh

I'll give the Iranian one wasn't exactly the best to use as an example, as for your opinion on others being paranoid conspiracy websites.. That's just such a cliché thing to say it makes me laugh.. Easy to spit the ole conspiracy line out isn't it..? Have you not noticed how many of the so called "conspiracys" keep coming to be fact..? I prefer to term myself as someone who doesn't believe known liars rather than a conspiracy theorist, but whatever floats your boat man... Either way you got my point in the fact that bbc, abc, CNN etc etc are state run propaganda also..

old hippy

jimeryan22 wrote: »

I'll give the Iranian one wasn't exactly the best to use as an example, as for your opinion on others being paranoid conspiracy websites.. That's just such a cliché thing to say it makes me laugh.. Easy to spit the ole conspiracy line out isn't it..? Have you not noticed how many of the so called "conspiracys" keep coming to be fact..? I prefer to term myself as someone who doesn't believe known liars rather than a conspiracy theorist, but whatever floats your boat man... Either way you got my point in the fact that bbc, abc, CNN etc etc are state run propaganda also..

The BBC is state run propaganda, you say? That must be why it's constantly running stories that upset whatever govt is in power. That's why politicians endlessly criticise the BBC. That's why the Iraq sexed up dossier/Kelly affair resulted in DG Greg Dyke and others stepping down.

jimeryan22

http://bpc-world.co.uk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10390607/Can-we-still-trust-the-BBC.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html


Yeah sorry you's both must be right and of course people are just "conspiracy theorists"... Hahaha. Yeah right
(Hope sources are ok for you's this time)

marienbad

jimeryan22 wrote: »

http://bpc-world.co.uk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10390607/Can-we-still-trust-the-BBC.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html


Yeah sorry you's both must be right and of course people are just "conspiracy theorists"... Hahaha. Yeah right
(Hope sources are ok for you's this time)

What has this got to do with Russia invading a sovereign state ?

jimeryan22

marienbad wrote: »

What has this got to do with Russia invading a sovereign state ?

What's it to you..?

recedite

the_syco wrote: »

EU bailout, or Russian bailout. Both are foreign bailouts.
Russia started raising the price once they couldn't take over Ukraine.

The temptation for eastern regions is to secede and immediately join RF, as Crimea did, leading to a bailout-free result, and also wage rises.

You are wrong about the gas prices. Russia was happy to supply gas at the discount price to an independent Ukraine up to this year. I already explained why the two discounts have expired this year.

recedite

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Wrong, the Ukraine's constitutional position is similar to (but not quite as extreme as) the US's position. So to say that the Crimea legally seceeded is as truthful a statement as to say that the CSA legally seceeded from the US.

And to be honest, even if the secession law was far more lenient than it is...

Maybe you missed the philosophical discussion on the "legality" of secession and declarations of independence earlier in the thread.
Basically my position is that a state should be ruled with the consent of the people, and if a significant number of them want out, then that is their inalienable right. The former ruling power almost always declares a secessionist movement to be illegal. Such laws are invalid in the face of the right to self-determination.

You mention the Confederate States of America. CSA seceded from USA, which in turn had seceded from the British Crown. In each secession case the mightiest only won by military power. The USA declared the CSA to be illegal, just as the British had declared the American declaration of independence to be illegal. Part of the reason the British lost is because the French assisted the Americans with an "invasion" of sovereign British territory, which was of course welcomed by the Americans. Modern USA is hypocritical to pretend that one of these secessions was legal and one was not.

So Brian, as you are so disdainful of secession in general, what is your position on the secession of Austria from Germany in 1945, while under the occupation of foreign troops?

marienbad

recedite wrote: »

Maybe you missed the philosophical discussion on the "legality" of secession and declarations of independence earlier in the thread.
Basically my position is that a state should be ruled with the consent of the people, and if a significant number of them want out, then that is their inalienable right. The former ruling power almost always declares a secessionist movement to be illegal. Such laws are invalid in the face of the right to self-determination.

You mention the Confederate States of America. CSA seceded from USA, which in turn had seceded from the British Crown. In each secession case the mightiest only won by military power. The USA declared the CSA to be illegal, just as the British had declared the American declaration of independence to be illegal. Part of the reason the British lost is because the French assisted the Americans with an "invasion" of sovereign British territory, which was of course welcomed by the Americans. Modern USA is hypocritical to pretend that one of these secessions was legal and one was not.

So Brian, as you are so disdainful of secession in general, what is your position on the secession of Austria from Germany in 1945, while under the occupation of foreign troops?

So is Russia wrong in Chechnya ?

Hotblack Desiato

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Have you not noticed how many of the so called "conspiracys" keep coming to be fact..?

Eh, no.

Which ones have ever turned out to be true?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Maybe you missed the philosophical discussion on the "legality" of secession and declarations of independence earlier in the thread.
Basically my position is that a state should be ruled with the consent of the people, and if a significant number of them want out, then that is their inalienable right. The former ruling power almost always declares a secessionist movement to be illegal. Such laws are invalid in the face of the right to self-determination.

So People's Republic of Cork is A-OK then? Actually it would be very beneficial for Dublin to secede and stop subsidising the rest of the country, we could be the Singapore of the West once we get the Wehst off our backs :pac:

recedite

marienbad wrote: »

So is Russia wrong in Chechnya ?

Russia pulled out of Chechnya in 1996, but the Chechens used their freedom to export terrorism. Chechens have bombed both Moscow and Boston, hence nobody has much sympathy for them; like Hamas and many elements in the Syrian resistance, they are the dog that will bite the hand that feeds it. Maybe some day when they cop-on and give up their religious fundamentalism, things will get easier for them.

recedite

ninja900 wrote: »

it would be very beneficial for Dublin to secede and stop subsidising the rest of the country,

I would not be so sure of that. If you stop to think where the wealth is actually generated, as opposed to where the most profits are accounted to, you might find that a lot of Dublin's wealth is either parasitic or interdependent.
If a farmer produces x quantity of kerrygold butter per year, and is paying interest on his farm machinery to a bank headquartered in Dublin, and the butter is exported by Dublin based transport and marketing people, then who is really generating all that wealth? Revenue accountants will record that most of the income is earned in Dublin.

wretcheddomain

recedite wrote: »

Maybe you missed the philosophical discussion on the "legality" of secession and declarations of independence earlier in the thread.
Basically my position is that a state should be ruled with the consent of the people, and if a significant number of them want out, then that is their inalienable right.

Define significant number.

recedite

Good question. There is no definition. It realpolitik, support or not depends on what the strategic interests of the major powers are.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

There is no definition.

But in principle, you're happy for anybody who wants to secede from a country to be able to do so without consulting with, or securing the agreement of, anybody else in the country?

old hippy

jimeryan22 wrote: »

http://bpc-world.co.uk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10390607/Can-we-still-trust-the-BBC.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html


Yeah sorry you's both must be right and of course people are just "conspiracy theorists"... Hahaha. Yeah right
(Hope sources are ok for you's this time)

These sites are anti-BBC, the Mail & Telegraph are well known for their opposition to the BBC. Where is the state run propaganda you keep laughing about???

recedite

For me personally, it would have to be an area bigger than a county and around the size of a province at the minimum, with a population big enough to sustain its own political structures and economy. Like Iceland. But that's just me; there is no internationally accepted norm for secession because in real life having weapons or friends in high places is what counts.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

But in principle, you're happy for anybody who wants to secede from a country to be able to do so without consulting with, or securing the agreement of, anybody else in the country?

You can make a better argument for it here
After the 1991 vote, (despite the fall, Crimean essentially had autonomy over it's own land) and not to forget that roughly 60% of the indigenous population are essentially, native Russian.

article wrote:

History[edit]
During the period of the Soviet Union, the Crimean Oblast was a subdivision of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic until the 1954 transfer of Crimea into the Ukrainian SSR. Crimea became part of independent Ukraine after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, shortly after Crimea had re-gained its autonomy following a 1991 referendum.[28] Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine abolished the 1992 Crimean Constitution[29] and the office of President of Crimea in 1995.[30] Crimea gained a new constitution in 1998 that granted less autonomy; notably, any legislation passed by the Crimean parliament could be vetoed by the Ukrainian parliament.[28]

Polling[edit]
Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that a majority of Crimeans would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia (63.8%), and at the same time to preserve its current status, but with expanded powers and rights (53.8%). Razumkov characterized Crimeans' views as confused, unsteady, and sometimes contradictory and therefore vulnerable to internal and external influences.[31] Polling conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in 2013 found that 36% of respondents in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea wanted Ukraine to unite with Russia. A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013 found that 67% wanted to remain in Ukraine and 23% wanted unity with Russia.[32] By early February 2014, just days before the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych, a subsequent KIIS poll showed a 41% support for unification of the entire Ukraine with Russia.[33]

In the days leading up to the referendum, one poll conducted by the German GfK Group found that 70% of Crimeans who intended to participate in the referendum planned to vote to join Russia, while 11% planned to vote to remain part of Ukraine.[34] A poll conducted by the Institute for European Policy Studies found that 80% were in favor of reunification with Russia,[35] while another conducted by the Crimean Institute of Political and Social Research found that 77% were in favour of reunification, and 97% assessed the current situation in Ukraine as negative.[36]

marienbad

recedite wrote: »

I would not be so sure of that. If you stop to think where the wealth is actually generated, as opposed to where the most profits are accounted to, you might find that a lot of Dublin's wealth is either parasitic or interdependent.
If a farmer produces x quantity of kerrygold butter per year, and is paying interest on his farm machinery to a bank headquartered in Dublin, and the butter is exported by Dublin based transport and marketing people, then who is really generating all that wealth? Revenue accountants will record that most of the income is earned in Dublin.

But nevertheless if they voted to break away would you be ok with that ?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

For me personally, it would have to be an area bigger than a county and around the size of a province at the minimum, with a population big enough to sustain its own political structures and economy. Like Iceland. But that's just me; there is no internationally accepted norm for secession because in real life having weapons or friends in high places is what counts.

It's interesting how you avoid, over and over again, the question of whether those of us outside Dublin should have any say over whether or not Dublin gets to secede from Ireland.

jimeryan22

old hippy wrote: »

These sites are anti-BBC, the Mail & Telegraph are well known for their opposition to the BBC. Where is the state run propaganda you keep laughing about???

What are you talking about anti bbc..? Hahaha. Such ****e talk, the first one yeah, but really..,? The independent and telegraph..? Cop on

jimeryan22

ninja900 wrote: »

Eh, no.

Which ones have ever turned out to be true?

A little selection for you emu..

http://www.trueactivist.com/16-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/

http://styleslides.com/25-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/3/

http://www.businessinsider.com/true-government-conspiracies-2013-12