The EU and the US basically have no influence over the Ukraine what are a few NGOs and a little bit of money supposed to do? If the EU had any influence over the Ukraine Poroshenko probably wouldn't be Ukraine's next president, and Russia wouldn't provoke as they please over and over again.
On May 22 2014 03:08 Mc wrote: Supposedly a bunch of Africans were forced to do 'slave labour' by separatists. Not sure I buy this though.
Could anyone explain what is going on and what is being said?
Not much to be said. A number of pro-separatist Africans were detained (on suspicion of some criminal activity) and are to be sent home (probably just to their homes, not deported).
On May 22 2014 03:15 tadL wrote: @marigoldran and the west is the good and the east are the bad. nothing wrong with a simply view on the world right? We can talk about this topic np. But this thread is not about it.
@Mc: I dont say EU is offering bad. I dont say the Russian opportunity is good. I just disagree that they will be able to really choose free. And if we just reduce the Ukraine on a stratigic objects its way to important for both sides.
I think Ukrainians are actually quite free to choose. Look at their most recent elections. First Yuschenko (pro-West), then Yankuvych (pro-Russia), and now probably Poroshenko (pro-West but more moderate).
To me the issue is that the country is split on whether they want to be part of Europe or not. They elect a pro-European (like Yuschenko) and nothing changes. So the pro-West half of the country doesn't vote as vigorously as they did previously, and the pro-Russian candidate wins. Then the pro-Russian candidate fucks the country up, and everybody is ready to vote pro-West again.
So I feel like Ukrainians are free to choose freely, but no matter who they choose corruption is so endemic in Ukraine that it doesn't really change anything.
@legallord Who were they detained by according to the video? edit: I like how the reporter shoves the guy speaking in order for him to turn towards the camera :p
On May 22 2014 03:28 Mc wrote: @legallord Who were they detained by according to the video? edit: I like how the reporter shoves the guy speaking in order for him to turn towards the camera :p
Lugansk authority. I believe they were held briefly for violating curfew and then they were released. Honestly this is pretty much a non-story.
According to this clearly pro-Ukraine website (click through images to see evidence), they were used as slave labour. The images show them sweeping an area w/ Ukrainian license plates, an armed white person guarding them, and the people in the photos match the people in the video. So I think there might be more to this story. If this is true, it's pretty disgusting that armed separatists are forcing Africans to do menial tasks.
According to this clearly pro-Ukraine website (click through images to see evidence), they were used as slave labour. The images show them sweeping an area w/ Ukrainian license plates, an armed white person guarding them, and the people in the photos match the people in the video. So I think there might be more to this story. If this is true, it's pretty disgusting that armed separatists are forcing Africans to do menial tasks.
I could be understanding it poorly, but it sounds like they were detained for drinking energy drinks and some were found with weed, the guy says he was told they also beat up someone whose title I don't understand.they wanted to join the separatists in fighting kiev under the name black snakes or something but were denied that, he mentioned they are eating well etc... says they will be sent back home after eating in their cafeteria. If I missed something or got something wrong someone who speaks Russian more than I do can correct me.
edit again: Sounds like he said they heard about some groups being made to clean lugansk and volunteered for it? Sounds pretty BS to me but who knows.
My understanding isn't the best, but I didn't hear anything about them being forced to stay and do slave labor or any sort of labor.
Basically: the people who took over Donetsk can't govern worth shit. The garbage is piling up.
And no, RT is not a reliable news source. Unless of course you're reading it in order to believe the opposite. Then it's a very reliable news source. The fact that RT says they're legitimate journalists most likely means they're GRU spies.
I actually read RT articles sometimes for the following reasons:
1.) To understand the Ukrainian crisis it's important to understand for what sort of BS Russia is feeding the separatists and Russians.
2.) Western/Ukrainian media sometimes overlook some of the negative actions of the pro-Ukrainians while RT always makes sure to cover these actions. The issue is that you have to parse out the distortion/propaganda and try to extract only the facts. Sometimes this isn't that easy to do.
Keep in mind that just because RT is a propaganda network that distorts the news, doesn't mean that all the information they provide is worthless.
I have said this a while back, its good to see that other people have brains to judge content by themselves, instead of grabbing everything that comes out of a source and putting it in a generic "propaganda" box.
The US media will always claim that organizations that have other agendas are pure propaganda machines, but truth is they are all the same.
Some journalists seem to be almost eager to throw away their capacity for critical thinking and just want to say the "Go west!" with a smirk on their face whenver something goes awry for Putin.
Theres legitimate reasons on both sides, and both sides would be better off sitting and talking. You cant simply act like all RT journalists are FSB spies, because thats simply not true!
just read this and thought its somewhat relevant to the thread about bias, media and human rights
"... it is an interesting coincidence how mainstream Western media outlets consistently produce narratives that are almost indistinguishable from official government statements regarding countries and leaders with dissimilar worldviews from their Western counterparts. For instance, we repeatedly hear about the democratically elected "dictators" in Venezuela, yet we are assured that friendly dictators are "moderate reformers".
Another fascinating coincidence is that Western human rights organisations pursue initiatives and policies closely aligned with those of their own governments. When the US accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against its own people - notwithstanding noteworthy evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that it was fine as far as Washington was concerned when former Iraqi president Saddam Hossein attacked Iran with chemical weapons - some human rights advocates stood shoulder to shoulder with President Barack Obama in advocating "shock and awe" in Damascus for humanitarian purposes. ......
On the side-lines of the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago, Amnesty International campaigned for NATO's continued occupation of Afghanistan under the rubric, "keep the progress going"; Amnesty's shadow summit for Afghan women was graced with the presence of none other than former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright known for commenting that over half million dead Iraqi children as a result of sanctions "was worth it"..."
^That's mostly interesting as a representation of the view in places such as Venezuela and Iran, but unfortunately professors of Tehran University are not free to write what they think but need to go through censorship. The texts end up full of vague generalities like the one above. The problem with generalities is that Western media, being free and independent, is not homogeneous enough to satisfy any single description. Even `free' does not apply to all outlets, consider RT and Fox news.
On May 22 2014 07:11 soujiro_ wrote: just read this and thought its somewhat relevant to the thread about bias, media and human rights
"... it is an interesting coincidence how mainstream Western media outlets consistently produce narratives that are almost indistinguishable from official government statements regarding countries and leaders with dissimilar worldviews from their Western counterparts. For instance, we repeatedly hear about the democratically elected "dictators" in Venezuela, yet we are assured that friendly dictators are "moderate reformers".
On May 22 2014 07:11 soujiro_ wrote: just read this and thought its somewhat relevant to the thread about bias, media and human rights
"... it is an interesting coincidence how mainstream Western media outlets consistently produce narratives that are almost indistinguishable from official government statements regarding countries and leaders with dissimilar worldviews from their Western counterparts. For instance, we repeatedly hear about the democratically elected "dictators" in Venezuela, yet we are assured that friendly dictators are "moderate reformers".
Another fascinating coincidence is that Western human rights organisations pursue initiatives and policies closely aligned with those of their own governments. When the US accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against its own people - notwithstanding noteworthy evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that it was fine as far as Washington was concerned when former Iraqi president Saddam Hossein attacked Iran with chemical weapons - some human rights advocates stood shoulder to shoulder with President Barack Obama in advocating "shock and awe" in Damascus for humanitarian purposes. ......
On the side-lines of the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago, Amnesty International campaigned for NATO's continued occupation of Afghanistan under the rubric, "keep the progress going"; Amnesty's shadow summit for Afghan women was graced with the presence of none other than former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright known for commenting that over half million dead Iraqi children as a result of sanctions "was worth it"..."
No it's not relevant at all, western media independence has been argued already and every country included in the West are countries with a relatively free press compared to the rest of the world, maybe medias take the same position as their own country because it's the less stupid one, or the most moral one, and no every media doesn't for sole objective money, there are still journalists that try to clarify situations for the public because they believe in Truth.
You must not read newspapers (or Western newspapers, I hate that term so much) often if you think they adopt the same positions as their government on foreign issues, just stop saying that already. We have center/right/left and extreme right/left/greens newspapers, with conspiracy theories coming from these more extreme ones, and different interpretations for each event by each of them, and you already have a difference there, the job of a journalist isn't only giving information but also giving an opinion, an own interpretation on the subject and that's what's the most interesting about this job.
And you see, most Western medias and most international NGOs aren't directly financed by their countries like Al Jazeera, the media you are quoting and Qatar, nor are they financed by companies and corporations like some of the conspiration-lovers say. So on morally and politically questionnable issues like Israel, Irak, Afghanistan, relations with the ACEO (Arabian countries exporting of oil) etc... The Western media is divided and most of the times, against its own government so just don't make assumptions based on dreams. This case now is just one where the actions of Putin and pro-Russians are so immoral and disrespectful of any human right, and completely stupid on a political level considering Russia wants to be a major power, that every media that isn't baked by Putin's Russia talks about Crimea as an annexed region and Eastern Ukraine as held by a small paramilitary group self appointed leaders of these regions (even Al Jazeera).
Also it's completely unbelievable how you generalize the medias in the West, I can at least talk for my country and it's extremely diverse, it's just that with Ukraine most Western media that wants to be respected as one takes the same position and consider the agression of Russia on Ukraine, just like the position most medias take when North Korea make threats and tests missiles, or when Russia vetos an intervention of the UN in Syria.
Anybody who claims that mainstream "Western" media outlets consistently produce narratives that are almost indistinguishable from official government statements regarding countries and leaders with dissimilar worldviews from their Western counterparts are just rewriting the past and the present.
Ignoring the past, during the Russian invasion of Crimea, there were plenty of "western" media companies writing and publishing pro-Russian pieces, explaining how the west are guilty, how russian has been provoked into its actions. These are in total contrast to claims that "western" media are adopting the same narratives as their governments. To ignore the many differing pieces of opinion produced by "western" media is to be either willfully ignorant, or to be knowingly pushing the false as part of an agenda to decieve.
He said: "All my work in order, no charges, no deportation, no one laid a hand on me in anger, Ukrainian authorities treated me fairly. All ok"
"They've taken my bulletproof jacket and my helmet, but on the other hand they haven't in any way inflicted any form of injury or any actions on my person," Phillips said in a phone call to Russia Today shortly after his detention, before his phone was apparently confiscated.
Note that Graham Phillips and incident with the two LifeNews "journalists" with the weaponry are not related.
they are related in the sense that they're all journos affiliated with russian media, and in both cases the junta claimed they were caught with weaps. nothing else has been suggested. we'll see how the lifenews one pans out, but it was a predictable lie in phillips' case.
So...affliated with russian media means that the two cases are related? How does that make sense, unless you are a believer in that russian media are all under the control of the russian government? Please stop refering to the Ukranian government as a junta. It just shows that you have no idea about the meaning of words; simply using the words of russian media without understanding what they mean.
You call it a lie but when has it EVER been claimed that Graham Phillips was caught with weapons? Stop spouting rubbish already.
EPT
