EPTEDIT: Most of the heavy weapons stuff are held in military bases, not police stations. Exactly what military bases have the separatists managed to capture?
Ukraine Crisis - Page 532
| 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 | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
EDIT: Most of the heavy weapons stuff are held in military bases, not police stations. Exactly what military bases have the separatists managed to capture? | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On May 14 2014 11:46 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: The first part yes, not the guerilla part though. Guerilla warfare has nothing to do with terrorism. All he shows is a clear misunderstanding of what terrorism is. Guerilla warfare is a form of fighting/combat. It has nothing to do with terrorism. I guess you could make the claim that the victims of the guerilla warfare were terrified by the fact they were engaged in combat, but that doesn't constitute terrorism, unless we are to say that all warfare is terrorism. The capturing of journalists and military observers caused terror to the individuals who kidnapped, so I would be compelled to agree. But a simple direct mapping led him to describe the American Revolution as terrorists. It says enough. Yeah, all those police stations/armories captured didn't have any weapons at all. Lol not even the Ukrainians in this thread believe the bs you say lol. You still have to show any proof for your crazy claims. So then you do agree that the armed seperatists are terrorists because they have tortured and killed politicians, they have kidnapped, beat up, threatened, and robbed journalists, and apparently in 2 of the cities they occupy are not allowing anyone to leave. | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On May 14 2014 11:49 m4ini wrote: Not even acknowledging your posting, sorry. Definition of terrorism. And then there's that. The try does, yes. I'll at least show you some respect, even if you give none. But you are honestly the first person I've ever heard make the argument that guerilla warfare is terrorism. In this age, where everything is terrorism, I guess it makes sense. Here's something from Wikipedia too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., military personnel in peacetime or civilians). So, we have separatists who were attacked by Ukrainian forces and fight back with guerilla warfare. They are fighting combatants, their actions are not intended to create fear (ironically, the Ukrainian forces are causing a bit of fear and terror by trying to bring the fight directly into the towns, and there are civilian casualties), and their fight against Ukrainian forces is for the purpose of not being conquered by them. Wikipedia doesn't agree that guerilla warfare between two armed factions is terrorism. It's called combat. Civilians killed by Ukrainian forces? Since it was not done intentionally, it's called collateral. However, even collateral civilian deaths have the effect of invoking terror. It's as if we can say both sides are terrorists! Oh the things we can achieve when we so loosely define a word. But let's forget about Ukrainian forces! The new Ukrainian government has unleashed its own brand of terrorists. I guess that makes the government terrorists too? :S http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/kievs-men-in-black-show-their-true-colours/story-e6frg6so-1226913753712#mm-premium So, tell me again why guerilla warfare against an attacking military force is terrorism? Who is being terrorized? Maybe Ukrainian commanders seeing how poorly their military is faring. I'd probably have a heart attack if my forces were doing that badly. But how you describe terrorism, every revolution ever, just the fact that revolutionaries are fighting an organized military force attempting to subdue them is terrorism for you. Good to know America was founded by terrorism. Thanks. On May 14 2014 11:50 hunts wrote: So then you do agree that the armed seperatists are terrorists because they have tortured and killed politicians, they have kidnapped, beat up, threatened, and robbed journalists, and apparently in 2 of the cities they occupy are not allowing anyone to leave. Uh yeah, when did I ever say otherwise? I'm just saying that in terms of warfare, guerilla warfare has nothing to do with terrorism. It is armed combat between two armed groups. This is aside from the kidnappings and assassinations. Holy shit guys, how did you turn a simple comment about political rhetoric into an argument about what terrorism is? LOL | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
Che Guevera did the same. Mao was slightly different: he began terrorizing the population AFTER he won the war. And then of course we have Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Would you call it "guerrilla warfare" or "terrorism?" EDIT: And exactly HOW are the Ukranian separatists getting their weapons? Police stations don't normally this equipment and the separatists have not captured any major military bases. I guess they must be getting it from thin air because OBVIOUSLY Russia would never supply them with it. After all, there is no photographic proof of Russians handing equipment over to the separatists, so therefore they must be innocent. Hardy har har. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
I'll at least show you some respect, even if you give none. But you are honestly the first person I've ever heard make the argument that guerilla warfare is terrorism. In this age, where everything is terrorism, I guess it makes sense. I never did. Go back and read my edit. Just because you didn't understand what i was saying, doesn't mean that i'm wrong. And about respect, you did read your posting before you edited it, right? If not, feel free to read again in my quote. Respect is mutual, if you try to be condescending, well, figures. So, we have separatists who were attacked by Ukrainian forces and fight back with guerilla warfare. They are fighting combatants, their actions are not intended to create fear (ironically, the Ukrainian forces are causing a bit of a stir by trying to bring the fight directly into the towns), and their fight against Ukrainian forces is for the purpose of not being conquered by them. Look, in the same wiki you linked me. By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is : ineluctably political in aims and motives violent – or, equally important, threatens violence designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity. What does that sound like? The link you supported even states that there's no coherent definition of terrorism, in fact, it even states what i linked earlier. So why do you assume that i'm wrong and you're right in your definition, are you that full of yourself? But how you describe terrorism, every revolution ever, just the fact that revolutionaries are fighting an organized military force attempting to subdue them is terrorism for you. Good to know America was founded by terrorism. Thanks bud. It's not how i describe terrorism. edit Would you look at that pearl in your link. Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state or become part of a different state That's apparently a "tactic" used by terrorists. Never knew, but i'm good with that. | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On May 14 2014 12:10 m4ini wrote: I never did. Go back and read my edit. Just because you didn't understand what i was saying, doesn't mean that i'm wrong. And about respect, you did read your posting before you edited it, right? If not, feel free to read again in my quote. Respect is mutual, if you try to be condescending, well, figures. Look, in the same wiki you linked me. What does that sound like? The link you supported even states that there's no coherent definition of terrorism, in fact, it even states what i linked earlier. So why do you assume that i'm wrong and you're right in your definition, are you that full of yourself? It's not how i describe terrorism. America doesn't define it that way either. Why would American politicians say that America was founded by rank-and-file terrorists, even if the revolutionaries fit the label you posted like a glove? :S What does that sound like? What does it sound like? It's saying pretty much anything that isn't an organized military force under a country, although organized military forces and the governments that direct them can and sometimes do fit this definition as well, minus the "non-state entity" part, meaning they can't be terrorists since they don't satisfy that condition. So you see? Everythingis terrorism if it isn't directly done by an organized government. So, if we follow that definition, it is impossible for the state to commit terrorism, while anything non-state agencies do is terrorism. People defending themselves against ethnic cleansing campaigns can be labeled terrorists. This definition is rather amusing too. And yet despite that, America says that revolutionaries against regimes we don't like, even Islamic jihadists massacring people left and right, are not terrorists. I see a lot of "flexibility" in the usage of this term  See my last edit in my last post. In case you've forgotten about the "black men", we don't even have to be nitpicky about whether Ukraine's military assault is considered terrorism. The Ukrainian government has their own terrorists. But, this has nothing to do with my original point that Ukraine is copying American rhetoric. I have no idea why you turned it into a discussion about the most loosely-defined word ever to exist. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On May 14 2014 12:20 marigoldran wrote: The issue of the definition of terrorism IS a very relevant part of this discussion. After all, BOTH sides are calling the other "terrorists." Since both of the principal actors: Putin AND the Kiev government are using the SAME WORD to describe each other, I believe it is an important word. Does that make sense to people? Well, while i might agree on that, there's literally zero chance to find a consensus. There's people way smarter than us struggling for decades now, without being able to come up with a unified definition. Oh, and i do think that EuroMaidan turned into a "terror-organisation" now. I rarely touch the object, but indeed what they did with their "hooligantroops" placed over police (instances where perpetrators weren't given to the police, but people waited for this "statemilitia" or whatever you wanna call it to arrive) is to me a step towards "reign of terror". | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
A terrorist, by definition, is anyone your country doesn't like. Putin obviously accepts this definition, as does Kiev. As does the Syrian government. As do the Syrian rebels. As does the American government. In other words, it's a very widely accepted definition. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On May 14 2014 12:25 marigoldran wrote: The modern definition of terrorism was invented by the recent American president: George W Bush. A terrorist, by definition, is anyone your country doesn't like. Putin obviously accepts this definition, as does Kiev. As does the Syrian government. As do the Syrian rebels. As does the American government. In other words, it's a very widely accepted definition. The first sensible thing I've seen you write in this thread. Cheers mate  I'm still interested in your evidence of Russia supply money/arms to the rebels. | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
In other words, you're no better than Bush at making arguments. EDIT: Please take it as a compliment. I'm comparing you to a highly esteemed American president. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On May 14 2014 12:29 marigoldran wrote: In other words: anything someone writes that you disagree with is "insensible." In other words, you're no better than Bush at making arguments. EDIT: Please take it as a compliment. I'm comparing you to a highly esteemed American president. No. I just go off of facts. Everyone is extremely familiar with Bush's Bush-isms. However, you are the only one stating that Russia gives money/arms to the Ukrainian insurgents. Not even the Ukrainian government says this. No number of journalists, observers, and others have found any proof. I'm sorry, but I make arguments on the basis of facts, not pure speculation. I'm still waiting for that evidence. :S Honestly, I am seriously looking for anything where Russia is giving these guys tons of money/weapons. No one has turned up anything. This must be the greatest covert operation in history. | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
Given our distance from the situation on the ground, there are no "facts." Only opinions and perspectives. EDIT: In a fluid situation like this, with massive amounts of disinformation provided by both sides, attempts to be objective will categorically fail because all of the so-called "facts" are highly distorted. If you can't understand this, then you're not any better than the average Russian citizen watching state controlled TV. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On May 14 2014 12:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: America doesn't define it that way either. Why would American politicians say that America was founded by rank-and-file terrorists, even if the revolutionaries fit the label you posted like a glove? :S I don't care what america defines as terrorism and what not. I go by international definitions, and while unarguably not all of them fit, some do. So again. What makes your definition correct, and mine wrong? What does it sound like? It's saying pretty much anything that isn't an organized military force under a country, although organized military forces and the governments that direct them can and sometimes do fit this definition as well, minus the "non-state entity" part, meaning they can't be terrorists since they don't satisfy that condition. So you see? Everythingis terrorism if it isn't directly done by an organized government. So, if we follow that definition, it is impossible for the state to commit terrorism, while anything non-state agencies do is terrorism. People defending themselves against ethnic cleansing campaigns can be labeled terrorists. This definition is rather amusing too. Oh, organized governments can be terroristic regimes as well. Terrorism is a bit more than flying planes into a house. It's also more than "just" frightening civilians. You can also terrorize governments. There's even cyberterror, who's dying there? Same goes for revolutions. Reign of terror, rings a bell? French revolution? But in fact, you don't even need to be that blunt, did you know that the "trumpets of jericho" on a stuka were deribelately added to terrorize allied soldiers? What i'm trying to say is, you're going way to easy on the terrorist-thing. While i agree, that term is way to widely used, if it fits, it fits. Not to mention, that if they're not terrorists, then they're insurgents. Which isn't that far off terrorism, and basically needs the same response. And yet despite that, America says that revolutionaries against regimes we don't like, even Islamic jihadists massacring people left and right, are not terrorists. I see a lot of "flexibility" in the usage of this term Well. That only makes the US hypocritical, but still not the "inventor" of terrorism or its definition, or did i miss something? See my last edit in my last post. In case you've forgotten about the "black men", we don't even have to be nitpicky about whether Ukraine's military assault is considered terrorism. The Ukrainian government has their own terrorists. But, this has nothing to do with my original point that Ukraine is copying American rhetoric. I have no idea why you turned it into a discussion about the most loosely-defined word ever to exist. Oh i do agree, i responded to someone else stating exactly that. But they're there to be gone on 25th. When do the insurgents/terrorists, whatever you wanna call them, disappear? Oh, and i didn't discuss. You immediately started blabbering about the american revolution and whatnot, so don't put that on me.  I'm sorry, but I make arguments on the basis of facts, not pure speculation. Then i'd like to see your source that the insurgents got their weapons off of captured ukrainian military bases/armories. edit: actually, nevermind. I'll drop out here, i remember what happened the last time a couple of people discussed for 3-4 pages. If you're interested, pm - i'm off to bed now. o/ | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On May 14 2014 12:34 marigoldran wrote: Your "facts" come from disjointed news reports and twitter feeds. Given our distance from the situation on the ground, there are no "facts." Only opinions. By "your", I assume you mean everyone in this thread. The issue with your post, is that there are people at the situation on the ground who are reporting on this. When something is so unreal, that even US and Ukrainian propagandists stopped saying it a long time ago because it had no basis, that no observer or journalist or intelligence service of any kind has seen such a thing happen, well I'm sorry, but all the proof is against you. The burden of proof is on you my friend. And quite honestly, I would love to see proof of this. Maybe there is an international conspiracy, that even the Ukrainian government is in on, to keep this covered up? Who knows, because no one seems to know about it  | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
And Kerry has said categorically, in very clear terms, that it holds Russia responsible for the situation in Ukraine. Hence the escalating rounds of sanctions. So your "fact" is simply wrong. | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
Key quote: Insurgents killed seven Ukrainian soldiers and wounded eight others in an ambush near an eastern rebel-held stronghold as the defense minister said the country was fighting an “undeclared war” with Russia. | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On May 14 2014 12:37 m4ini wrote: I don't care what america defines as terrorism and what not. I go by international definitions, and while unarguably not all of them fit, some do. So again. What makes your definition correct, and mine wrong? Oh, organized governments can be terroristic regimes as well. Terrorism is a bit more than flying planes into a house. It's also more than "just" frightening civilians. You can also terrorize governments. There's even cyberterror, who's dying there? Same goes for revolutions. Reign of terror, rings a bell? French revolution? But in fact, you don't even need to be that blunt, did you know that the "trumpets of jericho" on a stuka were deribelately added to terrorize allied soldiers? What i'm trying to say is, you're going way to easy on the terrorist-thing. While i agree, that term is way to widely used, if it fits, it fits. Not to mention, that if they're not terrorists, then they're insurgents. Which isn't that far off terrorism, and basically needs the same response. Well. That only makes the US hypocritical, but still not the "inventor" of terrorism or its definition, or did i miss something? Oh i do agree, i responded to someone else stating exactly that. But they're there to be gone on 25th. When do the insurgents/terrorists, whatever you wanna call them, disappear? Oh, and i didn't discuss. You immediately started blabbering about the american revolution and whatnot, so don't put that on me. Then i'd like to see your source that the insurgents got their weapons off of captured ukrainian military bases/armories. Police stations/armories. Kinda like what they've been doing for the past couple of months. They storm police stations, police surrender, they take the guns. Police stations and other security buildings often have armories filled with good stuff. Here's one of many of such captures across eastern Ukraine. They've been widely reported. eg. http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/29/ukraine-crisis-luhansk-idINL6N0NL4M320140429 Also, for what it's worth, some Ukrainian soldiers have defected, some even to the other side, bringing vehicles/weapons to the insurgents. eg. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/ukraines-offensive-falters-as-elite-units-defect-to-pro-russia-side/ And yet despite the fact every single journalist/observer in Ukraine is looking for Russia giving arms/money to these guys, they can't find anything On May 14 2014 12:47 marigoldran wrote: “Russia is already engaged” in Ukraine “in supporting Russian-led protesters and terrorists,” Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk told reporters in Brussels today after talks with European Commission President Jose Barroso. “We urge Russia to condemn them, to urge all these so-called protesters -- or really, terrorists -- to leave and vacate the buildings, and to do everything they can to stabilize the situation in Ukraine. Russia will fail to make Ukraine a failed state.” I still don't see the part about Russia giving money and arms to the separatists. This statement from Yatsenyuk is typical Ukrainian propaganda, and yet despite this, even they make no mention of Russia giving money and arms. IIRC, the Ukrainian government directly leads the "black men" though. Perhaps we should yell at Ukraine for leading terrorists? :/ | ||
| ||
