|
|
If you want ANY credibility, you should remove this link.
You would not take all for granted, because it looks "quite left"?
I have never seen so much bullshit in one pile (and i watched the Frontal21 documentation about counterstrike, to give a perspective), just take the time and read through the rest of those "articles".
|
|
|
This thread would be so much nicer if posting desinformation would be an actionable offense on TL. ``The information you posted has been proven to be false, WHACK, here's your TL-.''
|
On March 12 2014 05:18 Ghanburighan wrote:This thread would be so much nicer if posting desinformation would be an actionable offense on TL. ``The information you posted has been proven to be false, WHACK, here's your TL-.''
I honestly have no idea why someone would even dare to post a "source" like this, or quote it to make a point. It's so hilariously retarded what you can read there, it gives you stomach-ache just by browsing. I dare even say it's worse than russian propaganda-media.
edit:
Ty Nyxisto.
|
On March 12 2014 04:31 Geisterkarle wrote:Because many people here say, that the current prime minister of the Ukraine was elected by the majority of the parliament... I found a few pictures from the election: + Show Spoiler +Interesting, won't you say? Seems, that a few people had more than one vote...
The 1st picture is at least 3 years old. The second is by an oppositional source Bagnet and is most likely showing Party of Regions MPs voting discipline. The 3rd, why is Prime Minister candidate having a vote in a rain coat?
Overall examples like these are easy to find in Ukrainian Parliament (and many others for that matter), the question is can you prove that those happened during the Cabinet of Ministers voting?
In the following article you can see the video of the voting. No, Yatsenyuk was not wearing a rain coat, and the hall was pretty packed, which disproves the 2nd and 3rd photos. Also there were 371 yes votes, only 226 were needed.
http://tsn.ua/video/video-novini/verhovna-rada-obrala-noviy-kabinet-ministriv-ukrayini.html
Any other questions?
|
As we're on the topic. We have literally dozens of well accomplished independent news agencies over the world that have great reputation. If not a single one of those supports your narrative and you have to refer to crappy blogs then you're probably on the wrong track and it would really help the discussion if you'd stop linking those.
|
And here it starts:
Of course, no-one mentioned anything when Crimea turned off Ukrainian channels: Source.
Sorry, nope, everyone gets blasted from the same gun:
|
Well they are joining the Russian federation, have to normalize the laws with the Empire.
|
If they prevent Russian channels from being shown in Ukraine, that just validates the Russian propaganda. Let everyone say what they want, the people can decide what to believe.
|
I said, that you don't have to believe everything!
But you are making it to easy for you: Something from the "wrong" channel and you say its bullshit/not true/propaganda/...
For big ones you already disregard anything what RT is showing and telling. You don't check anything but believe just, what you want!
Look at both sides please! This is not "Russia is evil" and you are done! That is all much more complicated!
|
On March 12 2014 06:02 TheFish7 wrote:
If they prevent Russian channels from being shown in Ukraine, that just validates the Russian propaganda. Let everyone say what they want, the people can decide what to believe.
We are having a propaganda war here. Peacetime rhetorics don't apply right now.
|
We check everything. Try it, find one example in this thread where something RT has reported has been dismissed out of hand rather than refuted by cold hard facts.
***
On March 12 2014 06:02 TheFish7 wrote:
If they prevent Russian channels from being shown in Ukraine, that just validates the Russian propaganda. Let everyone say what they want, the people can decide what to believe.
There is a tiny little problem with this rhetoric, not everyone watches a plethora of channels, most of them watch whatever they're used to. As the Kremlin controls their channels, they get no alternative views. In this sense, the 'strongest argument wins', which I wholeheartedly support, only works under market conditions where people receive different arguments. I don't think an outright ban is the best course of action at the moment, but this is a major problem for all eastern european countries. (And for the US, with Fox news...)
|
On March 12 2014 06:09 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2014 06:02 TheFish7 wrote:
If they prevent Russian channels from being shown in Ukraine, that just validates the Russian propaganda. Let everyone say what they want, the people can decide what to believe. We are having a propaganda war here. Peacetime rhetorics don't apply right now.
Silencing the opposition is not something that leads to a free society. Free media is a staple point of all western democracies, simply because a state controlled media gives too much power over the thoughts of the population to the wrong people.
Even if i disagree with what someone is saying, i still think that they should be allowed to say it.
|
On March 12 2014 06:09 Geisterkarle wrote:
I said, that you don't have to believe everything!
But you are making it to easy for you: Something from the "wrong" channel and you say its bullshit/not true/propaganda/...
For big ones you already disregard anything what RT is showing and telling. You don't check anything but believe just, what you want!
Look at both sides please! This is not "Russia is evil" and you are done! That is all much more complicated!
Both sides, with one side presented by conspiracy theories, photoshops and miss attributed pictures?
You know its not that hard to post the equivalent of the level of information you just presented, just google image search "Russian book burning" and you get (a) pictures of guys with shaved heads and torches with Russian flags and (b) people burning Ukrainian books. No one is posting this here, why? Because its just random inflammatory pictures with no date on them, no reference, nothing. Its literally only marginally above zoe posting Hitler in Kyiv.
|
On March 12 2014 06:15 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2014 06:09 Cheerio wrote:On March 12 2014 06:02 TheFish7 wrote:
If they prevent Russian channels from being shown in Ukraine, that just validates the Russian propaganda. Let everyone say what they want, the people can decide what to believe. We are having a propaganda war here. Peacetime rhetorics don't apply right now. Silencing the opposition is not something that leads to a free society. Free media is a staple point of all western democracies, simply because a state controlled media gives too much power over the thoughts of the population to the wrong people. Even if i disagree with what someone is saying, i still think that they should be allowed to say it.
Another complication to consider (although, I repeat, not to be taken as the convincing argument) is that this is not `the opposition', it's another country. - one that is vastly superior in its wealth and soft power. Would you be ok if before the next German elections, all popular channels in Germany were filled with propaganda for a random party with ties to another country (let's use Linke as an arbitrary example), such that its advertising budget would effectively be triple or quadruple the advertising budgets of all other parties combined. I'm not saying this is exactly what's the case in Ukraine atm, but it's the root of the problem.
|
On March 12 2014 06:23 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2014 06:15 Simberto wrote:On March 12 2014 06:09 Cheerio wrote:On March 12 2014 06:02 TheFish7 wrote:
If they prevent Russian channels from being shown in Ukraine, that just validates the Russian propaganda. Let everyone say what they want, the people can decide what to believe. We are having a propaganda war here. Peacetime rhetorics don't apply right now. Silencing the opposition is not something that leads to a free society. Free media is a staple point of all western democracies, simply because a state controlled media gives too much power over the thoughts of the population to the wrong people. Even if i disagree with what someone is saying, i still think that they should be allowed to say it. Another complication to consider (although, I repeat, not to be taken as the convincing argument) is that this is not `the opposition', it's another country. - one that is vastly superior in its wealth and soft power. Would you be ok if before the next German elections, all popular channels in Germany were filled with propaganda for a random party with ties to another country (let's use Linke as an arbitrary example), such that its advertising budget would effectively be triple or quadruple the advertising budgets of all other parties combined. I'm not saying this is exactly what's the case in Ukraine atm, but it's the root of the problem.
all german channels are full of propaganda for the "established" parties before elections. like in every fucking "democratic" country.
it's just not as obvious as russian propaganda and a lot more subtle.
NEITHER side should take the moral high ground about propaganda. embedded journalists on NATO missions anyone?
|
On March 12 2014 06:36 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2014 06:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 12 2014 06:15 Simberto wrote:On March 12 2014 06:09 Cheerio wrote:On March 12 2014 06:02 TheFish7 wrote:
If they prevent Russian channels from being shown in Ukraine, that just validates the Russian propaganda. Let everyone say what they want, the people can decide what to believe. We are having a propaganda war here. Peacetime rhetorics don't apply right now. Silencing the opposition is not something that leads to a free society. Free media is a staple point of all western democracies, simply because a state controlled media gives too much power over the thoughts of the population to the wrong people. Even if i disagree with what someone is saying, i still think that they should be allowed to say it. Another complication to consider (although, I repeat, not to be taken as the convincing argument) is that this is not `the opposition', it's another country. - one that is vastly superior in its wealth and soft power. Would you be ok if before the next German elections, all popular channels in Germany were filled with propaganda for a random party with ties to another country (let's use Linke as an arbitrary example), such that its advertising budget would effectively be triple or quadruple the advertising budgets of all other parties combined. I'm not saying this is exactly what's the case in Ukraine atm, but it's the root of the problem. all german channels are full of propaganda for the "established" parties before elections. like in every fucking "democratic" country. it's just not as obvious as russian propaganda and a lot more subtle. NEITHER side should take the moral high ground about propaganda. embedded journalists on NATO missions anyone?
Yes, of course, that's not the point I was making. I was drawing your attention to the whole 'foreign country' influence aspect.
|
Freedom of press is incredibly important, it's better to have too much freedom than too little.
|
On March 12 2014 06:15 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2014 06:09 Cheerio wrote:On March 12 2014 06:02 TheFish7 wrote:
If they prevent Russian channels from being shown in Ukraine, that just validates the Russian propaganda. Let everyone say what they want, the people can decide what to believe. We are having a propaganda war here. Peacetime rhetorics don't apply right now. Silencing the opposition is not something that leads to a free society. Free media is a staple point of all western democracies, simply because a state controlled media gives too much power over the thoughts of the population to the wrong people. Even if i disagree with what someone is saying, i still think that they should be allowed to say it.
You also live in a stable country. One that is not partially invaded by foreign forces and not involved in a very real propaganda war. You're sitting on a mighty high horse right now.
In prinipal, yes, freedom of speech is good. But when it will potentially lead to immidiate bloodshed then shutting the tap temporairly seems like a good idea. Sometimes reality gets in the way of nice concepts. I think the most important thing to realize, though, is that the Ukraine isn't Germany (or France, or Sweden or some other nice, stable country). They don't have the luxuries we do. Just like democracy isn't worth much without stable functioning government institutions, freedom of speech isn't worth much if it means your country will be shot up.
Edit: Don't get me wrong. I love freedom of speech and all those other nice freedoms. There shouldn't be any limits on journalists ability to report. But banning Russian state propaganda and similar things make a lot of sense since the two countries are practically at war with each other.
|
On March 12 2014 06:23 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2014 06:15 Simberto wrote:On March 12 2014 06:09 Cheerio wrote:On March 12 2014 06:02 TheFish7 wrote:
If they prevent Russian channels from being shown in Ukraine, that just validates the Russian propaganda. Let everyone say what they want, the people can decide what to believe. We are having a propaganda war here. Peacetime rhetorics don't apply right now. Silencing the opposition is not something that leads to a free society. Free media is a staple point of all western democracies, simply because a state controlled media gives too much power over the thoughts of the population to the wrong people. Even if i disagree with what someone is saying, i still think that they should be allowed to say it. Another complication to consider (although, I repeat, not to be taken as the convincing argument) is that this is not `the opposition', it's another country. - one that is vastly superior in its wealth and soft power. Would you be ok if before the next German elections, all popular channels in Germany were filled with propaganda for a random party with ties to another country (let's use Linke as an arbitrary example), such that its advertising budget would effectively be triple or quadruple the advertising budgets of all other parties combined. I'm not saying this is exactly what's the case in Ukraine atm, but it's the root of the problem.
according to nuland us has spent over 5 billion dollars on shaping ukraine politics to their liking since 1991, dunno what the ruskis tally is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fvf74dqeQ9w/Ux2yRYEtfZI/AAAAAAAADH8/5cV6PYMML2s/s1600/Abgeordenter+bei+der+Abwahl+des+Pr%25C3%25A4sidenten+-.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LJKv3_m_8qA/Ux2E7MqugnI/AAAAAAAADHI/0sJyxRpQW-E/s1600/zwei+Hände+Abstimmung+-.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TSf7Co1JQN8/Ux2E_nbgWVI/AAAAAAAADHQ/7SjUPd900tg/s1600/Jazenjuk+zwei+Hände+Abstimmung+-.jpg)
