|
|
On May 06 2014 13:06 marigoldran wrote:
Once again, you're being somewhat dense. I never said that Putin is telling the truth. What Putin's actually doing is to get Russians (and hopefully others) to believe that Kiev is run by Nazis.
John Kerry and other Western politicians are doing the opposite. What they're trying to do is to convince their audience that Russia is behind the unrest.
My argument is that in this game of public perception, the West has mostly won it. The people who believe Putin's version of the truth are Russians/Slavs. Everyone else, even Al Jazeera, thinks Putin is behind the unrest.
What is the total truth? I don't know. I have conjectures, which I have mentioned in my previous posts, but those are my personal opinions. I personally think I am right, but in the end these opinions are not as important as the political game that Putin and Kerry are playing.
You don't know the total truth, so instead, your "total truth" is what the Ukrainian prime minister and Kerry/Obama said, with no basis, and purely for political reasons, and even some crazy old rabbi. At the very least, you're admitting there's things you don't know. It wasn't too long ago you were trying to act like some prophet with divine insight, knowing things that no one else knows, and demanding that it is total truth XD. You're making improvements. That's good. You're not as hopeless as I thought. For a second, I thought you were a monkey who learned how to type.
Very well. I'm sorry, but when journalists and observers whose ONLY goal is to catch Russia in the act of having military forces in eastern Ukraine and supplying arms/money to the insurgents are turning up nothing of the sort, then I have to say you are talking out your ass. Please excuse me for going off of the facts, rather than political propaganda and entirely illogical speculation. We should all be believing that Nazis are running Kiev, by your logic.
So admit that everything you're saying is purely speculation (even though the actual evidence on the ground disproves that) and leave it at that. I entirely believe in your right to believe whatever you wish. And please, do accept my apologies for being one of the voices of reason in this thread. My apologies also go to LocalPredictor, zeo, and PaleMan.
|
On May 06 2014 13:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 13:02 hunts wrote:
It seems like the pro russians in this thread are stepping up their trolling. Are you honestly calling me pro-Russian? That's about as inaccurate a statement as you can make. LOL I have been against the "pro-Russians" more than most here. Just saying. I see you haven't been following the thread. Unless of course you're calling Mc, Ghan, m4ini, and others pro-Russians as well. Then again, it's customary for people to sometimes say stupid things before thinking, so I can't say I blame you. However, I am also against pure stupidity, no matter what the position is. My apologies for not being a partisan that disregards evidence and actual events. I'm sure you understand (or maybe not).
No you're usually fine. I meant mostly zeo, paleman earlier, and nunez. Nunez I guess says he's "neutral" but then claims things like "CIA is controlling ukraine government" and just waves his hands denying every anti russian source.
|
When did I ever say I was a prophet with divine insight? I just happen to be more colorful at making my points than you are. What you're probably upset about is how I have a much more entertaining writing style than you. I also try not to make straw man arguments, which is apparently what you do all the time.
To respond to your main points:
1. The journalists and observers have not so far turned by concrete and obvious evidence of Russian military forces in Ukraine. On the other hand, just because they haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there. Given Russia's previous history in Crimea and Afghanistan, most important political people in the West are assuming Russia is behind it and is acting accordingly. Furthermore, they may have access to classified information which we're not privy to. So the jury's still out on this one, but my opinion is Russia IS doing it, for the reasons stated in earlier posts.
2. However, my primary point is whether that "proof" at this point is irrelevant. What's important is that many people believe Russia is behind the crisis in East Ukraine, regardless of what the proof actually is. Once enough people believe it, it becomes their "truth" regardless of whether it's actually true or not. In this game of public perception, the West is winning everywhere except in the areas in or around Russia.
|
I think Hammurabi is making the classic "neutrality" mistake. Just because he's trying to take the middle ground and trying to keep what he thinks is "an open mind" doesn't mean he's right.
|
On May 06 2014 13:16 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 13:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On May 06 2014 13:02 hunts wrote:
It seems like the pro russians in this thread are stepping up their trolling. Are you honestly calling me pro-Russian? That's about as inaccurate a statement as you can make. LOL I have been against the "pro-Russians" more than most here. Just saying. I see you haven't been following the thread. Unless of course you're calling Mc, Ghan, m4ini, and others pro-Russians as well. Then again, it's customary for people to sometimes say stupid things before thinking, so I can't say I blame you. However, I am also against pure stupidity, no matter what the position is. My apologies for not being a partisan that disregards evidence and actual events. I'm sure you understand (or maybe not). No you're usually fine. I meant mostly zeo, paleman earlier, and nunez. Nunez I guess says he's "neutral" but then claims things like "CIA is controlling ukraine government" and just waves his hands denying every anti russian source.
This type of extrapolation logic does not work. Like, "Yeah the CIA has been involved in all sorts of coups and secretly backing US-friendly regimes, so it's happening here" or "Russia sent forces into Crimea, so obviously at this moment they have forces in eastern Ukraine". The issue is, there's nothing directly pointing to the CIA having anything to do with the Ukrainian govt. (nevermind controlling it), so it cannot be adamantly stated as if it were confirmed, only speculated.
On the same token, there's not any "lookouts" as far as I'm aware for this kind of activity, so we probably wouldn't know about any CIA activity if hypothetically any was going on. But when every pair of eyes is watching if Russian military forces are in Ukraine and if Russia is supplying the insurgents with arms and money, and no one sees anything, well, we can't assume that it's happening. And these aren't Russian pairs of eyes either. These are from US and others, and Ukraine, who are opposed to Russia.
On May 06 2014 13:22 marigoldran wrote:
I think Hammurabi is making the classic "neutrality" mistake. Just because you're trying to take the middle ground doesn't mean you're right.
By being politically neutral, I'm not disregarding the evidence and facts that exist. When the evidence shows that there are NOT Russian Spetsnaz Dark Templars all over Ukraine, Russian military forces in eastern Ukraine, and Russian arms/money going to the insurgents, then I hate to break it to you, but logic demands that I agree with what's actual going on, rather than adhering to some form of partisan political rhetoric from Turchynov. But you said it yourself, statements from politicians are far more important than evidence and facts. :s
EDIT: I have a vested and personal interest in seeing peace in Ukraine. So yeah, maybe I'm working against Russia a bit. Not completely neutral.
|
The Russians are historically very good at hiding cover operations. Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there. For a person who's trying to keep an "open mind" you're being surprisingly naive.
Furthermore, there's a very good possibility that the CIA HAS found evidence of Russian activity, but they can't disclose it because it would bust their source.
Once again, the jury's still out on this one. But given Russian history, and the recent events in Crimea, I'm pretty certain Russian operatives are screwing around in East Ukraine.
EDIT: And not only that, but most people who have heard the news on Ukraine in the West believe this to be the case as well.
EDIT: The way spies and politicians think is very different from the Western legalistic tradition of "innocent until proven guilty." Hammurabi, you're looking at this from the wrong angle. I would argue that in international politics and in spy work the opposite is true: "guilty until proven innocent."
|
On May 06 2014 13:28 marigoldran wrote:
The Russians are historically very good at hiding cover operations. Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there. For a person who's trying to keep an "open mind" you're being surprisingly naive.
Furthermore, there's a very good possibility that the CIA HAS found evidence of Russian activity, but they can't disclose it because it would bust their source.
Once again, the jury's still out on this one. But given Russian history, and the recent events in Crimea, I'm pretty certain Russian operatives are screwing around in East Ukraine.
So are we. And yet we know tons of things of secret US operations, including something as traitorous and shocking as how the CIA almost executed a terrorist attack to kill Americans in order to justify invading Cuba. You'd think something like that would be kept under wraps for the next millennium or so.
Yet with all eyes and ears in everything going on in eastern Ukraine, we know nothing that points to the three things you assume from my last post :S.
The Russian Spetsnaz are extremely deadly and Russian espionage is effective, but they're not Dark Templars or Men in Black. They aren't invisible to sight, have brain-wiping technology, nor other things that would ensure there is ZERO proof of them. You're essentially saying the Russian military/espionage are superhuman, and I don't think that's the case.
EDIT: And not only that, but most people who have heard the news on Ukraine in the West believe this to be the case as well.
Of course they have. This is what they're government is telling them. Much like people in Russia believe Kiev is run by 100% Nazis.
EDIT: The way spies and politicians think is very different from the Western legalistic tradition of "innocent until proven guilty." Hammurabi, you're looking at this from the wrong angle. I would argue that in international politics and in spy work the opposite is true: "guilty until proven innocent."
Except with everyone probing for it, we have yet to find these "spies" (I like how it went from Russian military forces, now to spies lol. The narrative evolves  )
|
It's too early to tell, Hammurabi. Over time, evidence may or may not come. But I'm pretty confident the Russians can run a secretive operation for at least several months.
EDIT: In other words just because a couple of journalists haven't found anything doesn't mean nothing is happening. It's entirely possible the CIA has ABSOLUTE proof Russia is behind it, but can't share the classified information. And the journalists may have been bamboozled, which isn't that hard to do. At this point this is conjecture, but if you actually HAD an open mind, you can't discount this possibility.
Once again, you're looking at it from the wrong angle. You're thinking "innocent until proven guilty." In spy work and international politics, the opposite is more likely to be true: "guilty until proven innocent."
EDIT: I call them Spec Ops. They're a combination of Spetznaz with FSB. I'm not going to try to unravel the bureaucracy behind Russian security services, so for brevity's sake I call them "spies" or "spec ops" or "spetznaz." I don't know what organization they're specifically part of, but I honestly don't care. They're Russians, and as far as I'm concerned, they're spies, most likely with some or extensive military training.
|
On May 06 2014 13:34 marigoldran wrote:
It's too early to tell, Hammurabi. Over time, evidence may or may not come. But I'm pretty confident the Russians can run a secretive operation for at least several months.
Once again, you're looking at it from the wrong angle. You're thinking "innocent until proven guilty." In spy work and international politics, the opposite is more likely to be true: "guilty until proven innocent."
EDIT: I call them Spec Ops. They're a combination of Spetznaz with FSB. I'm not going to try to unravel Russian security services, so for brevity's sake I call them "spies" or "spec ops" or "spetznaz."
You're admitting to infinitely more right now than you were earlier today, nevermind yesterday or a couple days ago. I like this progress.  Hammurabi is pleased.
the opposite is more likely to be true: "guilty until proven innocent."
From what we see so far, that's what's happening. Everyone went in with this mindset of "guilty until proven innocent". And yet, at this rate, these journalists/observers would have better luck finding Atlantis, as things are pointing towards "innocent" more than guilty. Russia's action to secure the release of the OSCE-linked observers certainly isn't pointing to the "guilty" status.
This is what I think WILL happen, in the worst-case scenario:
Right now, Putin has been showing a lot of restraint. The Duma approves military action, overwhelmingly. The Ukrainian govt/military is giving Putin every "humanitarian/peace-keeping" justification he could want. The people in eastern Ukraine are begging Putin to intervene. And yet he is not.
So, worst-case scenario: The conflict escalates to a point where it's clear that Russian intervention to end the conflict in eastern Ukraine far outweighs the continuation of the conflict, and then Putin is in an extremely "justifiable" position to intervene. He doesn't even have to mention WMDs or Al Qaeda, etc. THEN, we will see Russian military forces, spies, whatever else, actually in eastern Ukraine, rather than pure speculation of ghosts and dark templars.
However, from what it seems like, the Ukrainian military isn't making half as much progress as they should. Maybe the insurgents don't need Russia anyways :S
|
You do realize that everything in this affair can be viewed in multiple different angles, don't you?
You have presented one angle. Here is another one:
The Russians freed the OSCE observers to win diplomatic kudos points from the West. In reality what they actually did was to use Ukrainian militia-men proxies to secretly arrest the OSCE monitors to prevent them freedom of movement to see what was actually going on behind the scenes. Once the OSCE monitors are released, the Russians have achieved two goals:
1. Prevented them from seeing anything in Ukraine.
2. Win diplomatic kudos points in the West.
In regards to journalists: they can only go to places where their handlers (the militia men) allow them to go. International, well-accredited journalists are generally not that difficult to spot. The idea is to push them towards areas that are run by ethnic Ukrainians with cruddy equipment, thereby proving that "Russia is not behind this war.'" And "please take pictures of this fat out-of-shape Ukrainian militiamen. Obviously Spetznaz is not involved." Behind the scenes the Russians are sending in anti-aircraft equipment that are shooting down Ukrainian helicopters. The journalists cannot see it because they're prevented from reaching those areas.
EDIT: US spy planes, on the other hand, can see it. But they can't publish it in the press.
EDIT: The journalists suspect that this might be happening. But without concrete proof, due to their journalistic integrity, they cannot publish it.
Kerry on the other hand has access to classified information. He's also not a journalist. So he can baldly accuse the Russians of being behind the whole mess.
Furthermore, I am not a journalist, so I can say whatever the hell I want. I think you're being played like the naive "open-minded" fool that you are. But that's just my personal opinion. And to be perfectly frank, you're not the only one. The Russians are very good at this game- at convincing people to keep "an open mind."
|
On May 06 2014 13:49 marigoldran wrote:
You do realize that everything in this affair can be viewed in multiple different angles, don't you?
You have presented one angle. Here is another one:
The Russians freed the OSCE observers to win diplomatic kudos points from the West. In reality what they actually did was to use Ukrainian militia-men proxies to secretly arrest the OSCE monitors to prevent them freedom of movement to see what was actually going on behind the scenes. Once the OSCE monitors are released, the Russians have achieved two goals:
1. Prevented them from seeing anything in Ukraine.
2. Win diplomatic kudos points in the West.
In regards to journalists: they can only go to places where their handlers (the militia men) allow them to go. International, well-accredited journalists are generally not that difficult to spot. The idea is to push them towards areas that are run by ethnic Ukrainians with cruddy equipment, thereby proving that "Russia is not behind this war.'" And "please take pictures of this fat out-of-shape Ukrainian militiamen. Obviously Spetznaz is not involved." Behind the scenes the Russians are sending in anti-aircraft equipment that are shooting down Ukrainian helicopters. The journalists cannot see it because they're prevented from reaching those areas.
EDIT: US spy planes, on the other hand, can see it. But they can't publish it in the press.
EDIT: The journalists suspect that this might be happening. But without concrete proof, due to their journalistic integrity, they cannot publish it.
Kerry on the other hand has access to classified information. He's also not a journalist. So he can baldly accuse the Russians of being behind the whole mess.
Furthermore, I am not a journalist, so I can say whatever the hell I want. I think you're being played like the naive "open-minded" fool that you are. But that's just my personal opinion.
Kerry also has as much reason or more to bs than Putin does. Both have very politically-charged agendas.
I guess Putin also has insider information that Kiev govt. is run by Nazis. Considering how much you're praising Russian espionage and painting it as if it's 100x better than any other country at espionage, it's far more likely for Putin knows far more than Kerry and is a far more likely to be right than Kerry. Right?
I think you're being played like the naive "open-minded" fool that you are. But that's just my personal opinion.
Yes. Evidence, facts, etc. all such terrible things. Let me tell my PI he's full of shit, that his many years of research are all a sham, and that he's making up stuff. All because he's open minded to proving things and turning it into a reality that's published and presented at conferences worldwide. I might as well do it with the entire CS department's faculty here while I'm at it. Why stop there? I should go to every engineering/science department and do the same, for being such open-minded fools, for believing the facts and evidence, rather than creating conspiracy theories of what isn't seen to be there by anyone but a random guy on a forum, or politicians from US, Ukraine, Russia, etc. pushing a hardcore political agenda. Also fuck me for being a graduate student. Such a foolish person I am, for being open-minded to the intricacies of architecture and embedded systems and searching for the evidence that backs theory and reality.
Furthermore, I am not a journalist, so I can say whatever the hell I want.
DING DING DING! You should have said that when you first started posting in this thread
|
You do realize that CS-type people and engineers are probably the WORST at navigating or understanding political situations, right? When's the last time you've seen a CS-type person be good at human relations and POLITICS?
EDIT: International politics and spywork follows a very different set of rules from computer science or engineering.
|
On May 06 2014 14:04 marigoldran wrote:
You do realize that CS-type people and engineers are probably the WORST at navigating or understanding political situations, right?
Yes, critical thinking, logic, and reasoning is SOOOO much worse than blind partisanship, stupid reasoning, and conspiracy theories LOL!
Someone's a bit jealous of smart people
For what it's worth, I minored in Political science in my undergrad. I only had to take a couple more classes to actually major, but it wasn't worth sticking around for another term. So there goes your argument LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But to repeat myself:
Furthermore, I am not a journalist, so I can say whatever the hell I want.
DING DING DING! You should have said that when you first started posting in this thread
I'm sure that "poli sci" people say whatever the hell they want, and tout it as fact of international politics. hehe 
|
If you minored in Political Science, then you probably understand even less than if you hadn't taken it at all. A little bit of knowledge is worse than no knowledge.
Also the fact that you quit, and you're proud of it, shows that political analysis is not your forte.
|
On May 06 2014 05:30 Mc wrote:
@ghan
What I find annoying is the 3~5 tweets you post at a time. You are trying to conduct, as you yourself put it, an "information-war" rather than trying discuss relevant issues in the thread. If I want a live-feed of events/opinions in E. Ukraine, I have other sources. The tweets are from random people I don't know and take up a lot of space. If I were interested in them, I could follow them and check them myself.
In your defence, occasionally you post a tweet I find very interesting (like the Russian presidential council basically implying that the Crimean vote was rigged). So, I'm all for posting relevant information on the conflict but maybe not so much and information that is truly original and worth discussing.
I think a few posters (aside from the pro-Russian camp) agree with me.
And don't take it personally- I am fed up with the extreme amount of lies/propaganda emanating from the Russian camp, but I think there are better ways to counteract it.
That's false. I think you're referencing the `time to don the information war helmet' comment to Zatic, which was meant as a defensive measure - i.e., I accepted that TL cannot moderate wild unproven accusations such as those flicked at the UN high commissioner for human rights and the UN as a whole in this thread. I don't conduct an information war, although I guess posts from free press do counteract propaganda in an indirect fashion.
Also, I hate to tell you, but what you find interesting isn't what everyone else finds interesting. In the end, I post things I find interesting.
***
The message has remained the same for months now, no sign that EU countries with the exception of the Baltics are actually thinking about additional defence spending.
***
***
|
On May 06 2014 14:08 marigoldran wrote:
If you minored in Political Science, then you probably understand even less than if you hadn't taken it at all. A little bit of knowledge is worse than no knowledge.
Also the fact that you quit, and you're proud of it, shows that political analysis is not your forte.
Oh man, to think I almost had hope in you improving. This is rich XD The reality is, I was very knowledgeable, certainly a lot more knowledgeable than most of the kids in those classes, who literally do no work, don't study, etc. Usually how poli sci kids are anyways. When a professor or two asked me if I was planning on pursuing a Ph.D in Political Science, they were almost disappointed when I told them I'm actually a CS major, going to do my graduate degree in CS lol. Yes, I'm certain that the poli sci "majors" who took 2 more classes than me are A LOT more knowledgeable lol.
I think political analysis is significantly more my forte than it will ever be yours. This thread has certainly been proof of that. Your idea of "political analysis" is, "Russian military forces were in Crimea, THEREFORE, they are in Eastern Ukraine". That is among the silliest line of reasoning I've seen in this thread, and I've been in this thread for a long time.
EDIT: Thank you Ghan for a news update. Even from the low-quality video, it looked precisely like a missile firing. I don't know how it was mistaken for a plane being shot down.
|
Obviously I've bruised your ego, which, to be honest, I'm not too upset about. You can believe whatever you want. Wisdom cannot be forced upon fools, just as pearls should not be cast before swine.
Good evening, or night, depending on how you look at it.
|
@hunts
i think the extent of my allegations (at least on average) is that the us govt are overtly and probably covertly backing the coup or what-have-you for less than admirable reasons. my gripes with american go's like usaid and ned are not baseless, but speculative.
my primary concern from the start of the thread has been with the ultranationalist and fascist elements of the maidan movement not being properly dealt with as well as foreign meddling. neither will do the ukrainians any good, and will make the probability of success of any democratic movement slimmer.
the govt in kiev is the unholy child of these two factors, at least that seems to be the perception in eastern and southern ukraine. i don't think they should be trying to establish their legitimacy through violent means as they are now. it ain't gonna work, and the continued attempt is going to deepen the divide between west and east.
the us absorbs most of my ire, but the us concerns me more than russia, since i am a western homosexual fascist after all. your pro-russian labelling is off base.
@judi
brennan paying a 'secret visit' to the kiev govt is indicative that the cia has something to do with the ukrainian govt, at the very least.
|
If you guys want to have 20+ post arguments just take it to pm, this is just making this thread even worse somehow.
|
On May 06 2014 14:13 marigoldran wrote:
Obviously I've bruised your ego, which, to be honest, I'm not too upset about. You can believe whatever you want. Wisdom cannot be forced upon fools, just as pearls should not be cast before swine.
Good evening, or night, depending on how you look at it.
Yeah, it's bruised alright. I guess your "political analysis" skills say that me showing how and why you're wrong left and right is bruising my ego.
I'm not the one believing whatever I want. I'm believing what the proof and evidence says. It's you who boldly declared, "I can say whatever the hell I want." Well played mate.
On May 06 2014 14:15 nunez wrote:
@hunts
i think the extent of my allegations (at least on average) is that the us govt are overtly and probably covertly backing the coup or what-have-you for less than admirable reasons. my gripes with american go's like usaid and ned are not baseless, but speculative.
my primary concern from the start of the thread has been with the ultranationalist and fascist elements of the maidan movement not being properly dealt with as well as foreign meddling. neither will do the ukrainians any good, and will make the probability of success of any democratic movement slimmer.
the govt in kiev is the unholy child of these two factors, at least that seems to be the perception in eastern and southern ukraine. i don't think they should be trying to establish their legitimacy through violent means as they are now. it ain't gonna work, and the continued attempt is going to deepen the divide between west and east.
the us absorbs most of my ire, but the us concerns me more than russia, since i am a western homosexual fascist after all. your pro-russian labelling is off base.
@judi
brennan paying a 'secret visit' to the kiev govt is indicative that the cia has something to do with the ukrainian govt, at the very least.
Maybe it does, we don't know. But for certain, it doesn't mean the CIA controls the government in Ukraine though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
