EPTOn March 29 2014 00:41 zeo wrote:
Ask your neighbors Sweden how much their government has been supporting Assange
Ask your neighbors Sweden how much their government has been supporting Assange
So that makes him traitor in sweden? lol
Ukraine Crisis - Page 382
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7524 Posts
So that makes him traitor in sweden? lol | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
On March 29 2014 00:45 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: So that makes him traitor in sweden? lol The Swedish media war on Assange – ”Australian pig”, ”retard”, ”white-haired crackpot”, ”scumbag” http://www.friatider.se/the-swedish-media-war-on-assange edit: this is getting a little off topic so I won't post anymore about about this. | ||
|
AlternativeEgo
Sweden17309 Posts
| ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
“Earlier Crimea was merged with Ukraine under Soviet laws, to be more exact by the [Communist] party's laws, without asking the people, and now the people have decided to correct that mistake. This should be welcomed instead of declaring sanctions," Mikhail Gorbachev http://rt.com/news/mistake-fixed-crimea-gorbachev-422/ I'm going to state my opinion on this : I think that Gorbatchev wanted to reform the USSR and never wanted its explosion. He was held responsible for it even if the economic situation was catastrophic at the time and it served Eltsine's interests. It's extremely strange because on alot of subjects he is extremely progressist "A society should never become like a pond with stagnant water, without movement. That's the most important thing." Mikhail Gorbachev http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/mikhail-gorbachev-environment-climate-change_n_3107876.html "Such population pressure, coupled with a crumbling world economy and unchecked exploitation of natural resources, will only foment human suffering, spread poverty, reduce human security, cause more conflicts, and further degrade the environment," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/mikhail-gorbachev-russia-democracy_n_2985064.html "We have come to the point when we have cut off perestoika. Politics is increasingly turning into imitation. We need a new system of the governance of the country," Perhaps age did its thing but to me it looks like he is just attempting to get on the good sides of Russians and Putin again and threw out most of his ideals because of that. | ||
|
Roman666
Poland1440 Posts
On March 29 2014 01:37 Acertos wrote: I'm going to state my opinion on this : I think that Gorbatchev wanted to reform the USSR and never wanted its explosion. He was held responsible for it even if the economic situation was catastrophic at the time and it served Eltsine's interests. It's extremely strange because on alot of subjects he is extremely progressist "A society should never become like a pond with stagnant water, without movement. That's the most important thing." Mikhail Gorbachev http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/mikhail-gorbachev-environment-climate-change_n_3107876.html "Such population pressure, coupled with a crumbling world economy and unchecked exploitation of natural resources, will only foment human suffering, spread poverty, reduce human security, cause more conflicts, and further degrade the environment," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/mikhail-gorbachev-russia-democracy_n_2985064.html "We have come to the point when we have cut off perestoika. Politics is increasingly turning into imitation. We need a new system of the governance of the country," Perhaps age did its thing but to me it looks like he is just attempting to get on the good sides of Russians and Putin again and threw out most of his ideals because of that. It is widely known he did not want the USSR to collapse. He was in fact ousted from the government when Yeltsin declared himself president of Russian Federation, not USSR, effectively destroying it. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 28 2014 18:36 nunez wrote: bbc and robert parry is alternate reality? cool beans. robert parry the conspiracy theorist who believes the CIA rigged the Iran crisis so Ronad Reagan could become president? | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 28 2014 20:01 zeo wrote: Everything that is happening right now in Ukraine is completely the fault of Euromaidan. Seriously, they used nazi's and extremists to seize power and now your unelected government is murdering anyone that could endanger their precious 'revolution'. I don't know what kind of propaganda you've been exposed to but the whole revolution cycle is starting up again between the various factions that were barely held together during Euromaidan. . 1. Is this like the rivers of blood you promised once the fascist take power for all Russian speakers and the hundreds of thousands of refugees running to Serbia? 2. You realize you are talking to a guy who is (a) Russian speaker (b) from the East (c) who was against Maidan until your glorious leader invaded Crimea. I guess the neocon propaganda agents of the EU convinced him in the week between Yanukvich fleeing and Russians invading that he was wrong. On March 29 2014 01:30 AlternativeEgo wrote: So "Swedish media" is that one racist site that no sane person cares about Its anything zoe imagines its is. Thats the power of belief in freedom and defending liberty with Putin against Western aggression! | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On March 29 2014 03:15 Sub40APM wrote: robert parry the conspiracy theorist who believes the CIA rigged the Iran crisis so Ronad Reagan could become president? Parry was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984 for his work with the Associated Press on Iran-Contra, where he broke the story that the Central Intelligence Agency had provided an assassination manual to the Nicaraguan Contras (Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare). In mid-1985 he wrote the first article on Oliver North's involvement in the affair, and, together with Brian Barger, in late 1985 he broke the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal, helping to spark Senator John Kerry's interest in investigating Iran-Contra. you got a better clue on cia than robert parry though, right seb? uh, seb who again? ridic and shameless. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 29 2014 03:32 nunez wrote: you got a better clue on cia than robert parry though, right seb? uh, seb who again? ridic and shameless. No I do not, but I am not the guy who routinely posts from 'alternative news sources' anytime I need a confirmation of my world view either. But I guess the fact that Pary won a prize 30 years ago proves that his one man website is legit. After all, this is a totally even handed analysis of the issue Indeed, neutralizing the Obama-Putin relationship may have been the chief reason why the neocons were so eager to stoke the Ukrainian fires — and it shows how false narratives can get people killed. Ukraine was a crisis created by the all powerful and nebulous neocons to breaking up Barry and Vova, best friends for peace forever. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On March 29 2014 03:42 Sub40APM wrote: No I do not, but I am not the guy who routinely posts from 'alternative news sources' anytime I need a confirmation of my world view either. But I guess the fact that Pary won a prize 30 years ago proves that his one man website is legit. your knee jerk reaction is to think you can tarry parry as CIA conspiracy theorist, when he's an adward winning journalist on CIA conspiracies? 'clever' quotation marks to save face are always a safe bet. if it isn't paraphrasing an obama press release it's BS i tell you. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 29 2014 03:56 nunez wrote: your knee jerk reaction is to think you can tarry parry as CIA conspiracy theorist, when he's an adward winning journalist on CIA conspiracies? Its not a knee jerk reaction, its a fact that he is a conspiracy theorist. His awards pre-dated his later conspiracy theories -- the unsubstantiated ones he spent all of the 90s developing and kept him from finding work until the money finally ran out and he had to go be a business editor at Bloomberg. 'clever' quotation marks to save face are always a safe bet. You mean quotations from your most recent source that advocates a world view you share, neocon superman are behind all evil in the world? | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
i really admire your eclectic, impartial voice, and even handed posting in this thread. haaha. User was warned for this post | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 29 2014 04:32 nunez wrote: parry's angle on ukraine unrest is more nuanced and interesting than msm reminding you what a stinker putin is or how violating international law isn't supposed to be bilateral thing. i really admire your eclectic, impartial voice, and even handed posting in this thread. haaha. Going from one extreme to another doesn't help there either. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [Barry is a conspiracy theorist] + I hate to even get involved in this, but, yeah, Robert Parry is a pretty much the definition of a conspiracy theorist. Even his early articles were nearly universally criticized and now he cannot work at respected news agencies. This also means that he never really got any major awards for investigative journalism, he just has the one for his first articles from his wiki page. For the alternative reality guys in this thread, this probably sounds like he must be right about the government and is being persecuted and whatnot, but he's just not legit. Look at his articles now, they are nonsense, and would not get pass any respectable editor. His story contrasts with many other journalists who actually do investigative journalism and write quality expositions of them which have major impact. These include many Pulitzer prize winners in investigative journalism and others. Parry does not belong among them. In fact, investigative journalism needs to be considered with especial care. These people have a major role to play, but they can also do massive damage with their reporting as they are always working on the fringe of people's understanding and even the most careful make mistakes. Consider Safire's 78 `budgetary irregularities' article that won him a Pulitzer. Once the case was decided in court in 1981, it all turned out to be nothing at all. Does that mean that the reporting was bad? No, it was the best that could be done with limited information. But you shouldn't take a single article as the be all and end all, you need the input of a great many people and often investigations by authorities. And you need time. That's why `free media' is what people prefer to read - it's a huge web of competing journalists who publish, criticize each other, try to provide alternative explanations and finally end up covering cases from a wide range of perspectives, only to settle on a rather plausible account. On the other hand, `alternative media' generally tries to write sensational news stories without attempts to provide the best fit for all known information, nor are they actively part of the international network of journalism in that they don't take what other people write into account, providing very low quality content for the niche who wants to hear that exact story, and their `articles' are also pretty much ignored by the wider public for the very same reason. *** Here's an article on the legal status of the annexation of Crimea according to Russian scholars by Mälksoo (he's an Estonian professor of international law, very technical but one of my favourite `local' authors). ... the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation goes against pretty much everything that has been written in Russia over the last twenty years (plus during the Soviet period) on the legality of the use of military force and the right or peoples to self-determination in international law in non-colonial contexts. Suffice it to say that the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, approved by President Putin on 12 February 2013, emphatically criticizes and condemns the use of military force outside the framework of the UN Charter. Continue reading here. *** More on Tatars: If only the OSCE could send monitors to that region... | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On March 28 2014 11:14 nunez wrote: cherry picking anectodal evidence doesn't hold up to comprehensive study, sry. what comprehensive study of this issue have you done lololol brandenburg v ohio is not anecdotal evidence, it is the authoritative judicial precedent in the united states. it is so secure that it has not been revisited since it was handed down. the pentagon papers, watergate, iran-contra, agent orange, cointelpro, abu ghraib, no wmd, what i listed above, and so much more is not cherry picked anecdotal evidence. these were all matters very important to the public interest that were damaging to the government that the government desperately wanted to not be published and, after the pentagon papers case, were published anyway because the government doesn't even try to censor them anymore. in the lack of counterexamples of equal importance all you're doing is being the typical flamebaiting bitch you've been all thread. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On other news, Obama made a massive gaffe (although at a non-event). I wouldn't want to be that speechwriter... Note, this was 2 days ago, but Russia just found out about it so expect a ton of content shortly. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 29 2014 04:32 nunez wrote: parry's angle on ukraine unrest is more nuanced and interesting than msm reminding you what a stinker putin is or how violating international law isn't supposed to be bilateral thing. i really admire your eclectic, impartial voice, and even handed posting in this thread. haaha. So far I've posted sources from: Russian right wing sources, Russian business sources, Ukrainian business sources, The Guardian, the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Globe and Mail. But I guess your brave stand against the all powerful and all reaching neocons is just too far for me to take. Thank god you can provide well researched and nuanced sources from totally legitimate and totally not conspiracy oriented publications. New poll released 2 days ago: Poroshenko leads all candidates with 25% Klitcho is at 8.9% Timoshenko at 8%, a decline in polls and the Svoboda guy at a super threatening 1.7% http://www.socis.kiev.ua/ua/press/rezultaty-sotsiolohichnoho-doslidzhennja-elektoralni-orijentatsiji-ukrajintsiv.html There is also a poll of support for Parliamentary parties. Timoshenko's is still the most popular at 15%, Yanukovich's Party of Regions is at 10%, Communists at 4.9%, the Right Sector at 1.9% and Svoboda at 3.5%. 20% didnt respond. | ||
|
Greem
730 Posts
On March 29 2014 04:59 Ghanburighan wrote: I wrote the spoilered part about Barry, but I think it's all off topic, so can we please get back to ignoring Zeo, Nunez and Paleman? Don't you guys remember the nonsense they've written in the past? Do you think the past weeks have changed the quality of their posts? If not, just leave them be. Consider their posts filler and move on. + Show Spoiler [Barry is a conspiracy theorist] + I hate to even get involved in this, but, yeah, Robert Parry is a pretty much the definition of a conspiracy theorist. Even his early articles were nearly universally criticized and now he cannot work at respected news agencies. This also means that he never really got any major awards for investigative journalism, he just has the one for his first articles from his wiki page. For the alternative reality guys in this thread, this probably sounds like he must be right about the government and is being persecuted and whatnot, but he's just not legit. Look at his articles now, they are nonsense, and would not get pass any respectable editor. His story contrasts with many other journalists who actually do investigative journalism and write quality expositions of them which have major impact. These include many Pulitzer prize winners in investigative journalism and others. Parry does not belong among them. In fact, investigative journalism needs to be considered with especial care. These people have a major role to play, but they can also do massive damage with their reporting as they are always working on the fringe of people's understanding and even the most careful make mistakes. Consider Safire's 78 `budgetary irregularities' article that won him a Pulitzer. Once the case was decided in court in 1981, it all turned out to be nothing at all. Does that mean that the reporting was bad? No, it was the best that could be done with limited information. But you shouldn't take a single article as the be all and end all, you need the input of a great many people and often investigations by authorities. And you need time. That's why `free media' is what people prefer to read - it's a huge web of competing journalists who publish, criticize each other, try to provide alternative explanations and finally end up covering cases from a wide range of perspectives, only to settle on a rather plausible account. On the other hand, `alternative media' generally tries to write sensational news stories without attempts to provide the best fit for all known information, nor are they actively part of the international network of journalism in that they don't take what other people write into account, providing very low quality content for the niche who wants to hear that exact story, and their `articles' are also pretty much ignored by the wider public for the very same reason. *** Here's an article on the legal status of the annexation of Crimea according to Russian scholars by Mälksoo (he's an Estonian professor of international law, very technical but one of my favourite `local' authors). *** More on Tatars: https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/449633163778985984 If only the OSCE could send monitors to that region... hahaha, yea, thats right, throw the far sided "opposition" in form of nicks your posted away, let the democracy rule this thread . User was warned for this post | ||
|
MyrMindservant
695 Posts
On March 29 2014 06:01 Greem wrote: hahaha, yea, thats right, throw the far sided "opposition" in form of nicks your posted away, let the democracy rule this thread . How much of this thread did you read? Not much I guess if you really think that what he said is "discarding any opposition". There were plenty of people and posts that did not support popular opinion here but were taken seriously. It's not about opposition but about some particular users that have proven time and time again that they can't/don't want to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. Unless you consider providing false information, repeating the same thing again and again, and ignoring all the facts that don't align with their point of view to be a meaningful contribution. I'm not sure about Nunez, don't remember enough of his posts here. But Zeo and Paleman did exactly what I've listed above. There is no reason to respond or even pay attention to their posts, unless you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. | ||
|
Greem
730 Posts
On March 29 2014 06:23 MyrMindservant wrote: How much of this thread did you read? Not much I guess if you really think that what he said is "discarding any opposition". There were plenty of people and posts that did not support popular opinion here but were taken seriously. It's not about opposition but about some particular users that have proven time and time again that they can't/don't want to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. Unless you consider providing false information, repeating the same thing again and again, and ignoring all the facts that don't align with their point of view to be a meaningful contribution. I'm not sure about Nunez, don't remember enough of his posts here. But Zeo and Paleman did exactly what I've listed above. There is no reason to respond or even pay attention to their posts, unless you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. i read a lot, not all of it, but quite from the begining. And you answer quite supported how do you "take seriously" people with different opinion and how you contribute more then them to this thread, and remind me again, what is the definition of contribution to the thread ? | ||
| ||
