|
|
On January 28 2014 04:47 Saryph wrote:
In what world do some of the posters in this thread live in to think that it's alright for police officers to throw Molotov cocktails/gasoline bombs at protesters, or to strip people naked, beat them, slash them with knives, or even kill them? To go into hospitals and beat patients for information?
Hell, I didn't even know police officers carried around knives for slashing/stabbing people.
But...but...the Banderites and Western Imperialism X_X
|
United States41387 Posts
On January 28 2014 04:53 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 04:22 Greem wrote:On January 28 2014 03:26 Crushinator wrote:On January 28 2014 01:33 Greem wrote:
Are we living in the same age ? I mean since when does the president of any country possesses some magicl powers to control everything ? Sure there are some legit politicians who went all the way to be a president by themselves, but most did so with help of some magnate, so the favours can be delievered aftewards with a great % of profit. Dont fool youself, changing a president ain't gonna change a thing as long as those behind him exist, welcome to corruption. It exist in every country, gently behind glorius red curtain. Sometimes its more clearly visible, sometimes its not. But what do you expect in politics other then a dagger behind a back. How many true-hearthed humanitarians politicians this world knew in last 50 years or so ? Not many i bet. And not every is intelligent enough to survive in this harsh enviroment. So to proclaim a revolution and use methods that this thugs are using on this EUROmaidan to change the man is charge is pathetic to say the least. I honestly don't know how to improve things or how to reduce corruption to aceptable levels, because lets be honest its never be at 0, but what i know is that its damn insulting to speak about this as some holy expedition to seek the truth and to restore the kingdom for people. Sometimes it is good for people to show their deep dissatisfaction in this way. An uprising of the people can be a catalyst for change, and by change I don't mean changing one corrupt official for another, or picking EU over Russia. Throwing molotov cocktails and plundering government buildingd isn't a very good way to bring about change. But it is a lot better than just sitting back, saying: Yeah corruption is bad, but its always been and always will be, its how things are here. Which, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is a common attitude in eastern Europe and Russia. I mean no offense. I think when violence of any kind appears, the goal and purpose of the side using it, is never true or noble, or tries to help in any way.They wanna make a not of noise , have the attention, scream , i believe not a single man on that square knows the pros and cons of integration or whos better suited to be a president and all those who suround him, they just follow "the voice".From what i've heard they vandalized 2 shops, burned them to the ground and 2 girls caught there who didn't shared they noble truth were striped or something like that. And i don't even know what could've happened off the camera and stories, people under blind fanatism do crazy things. Sadly i don't know any other case, but i think Mahatma Gandhi showed what can be done with really good intentions and no bloodbath, obviously if they only want "change" well they cannot do it any other way. They don't know how to change or what they wanna change, they just demand it, with all the juicy words like freedom , indepence, for the people, etc. violence against british colonial power played an important part in india's struggle for independence. are you suggesting it was unnecessary or are you oblivious to the fact? in any case if you want to draw comparisons you should substantiate.
British decolonisation happened largely as a result of a recognition of the changing state of affairs following WWII and pressure from the new superpower, the United States. Where there was anticolonial violence, such as the Malayan Emergency, British forces remained and fought until the opposition were destroyed before continuing with decolonisation. A pacified stable state was considered a prerequisite for self rule. Violence delayed rather than accelerated decolonisation which had been a natural process of increasing colonial autonomy for over a century by then.
|
On January 28 2014 03:09 darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 22:17 xM(Z wrote:
if UN/EU will try and give military help to Ukraine (opposition), russians will invade from the east for sure.
worst case for Putin, he will have to "trade" Syria for Ukraine. It wouldn't happen. Ukraine is more precious to Russia than Syria for a lot of reasons. 
that was kinda my point. they'd give up Syria to EU if EU stops funding the protests in Ukraine.
|
United States41387 Posts
I don't think anyone anywhere still wants a piece of Syria.
|
well some parties can make do with an unusable Syria.
|
http://www.businessinsider.com/understanding-euromaidan-2014-1
I've been following this quite a while and just want to get the opinion of the Ukraine citizens on this article. It seems like the Ukrainian people are doing what needs to be done in order to get corruption out of the way. Of course, this doesn't warrant that the following government won't be corrupted, but I'm sure they would do things differently as they are seeing what is going on. As a US citizen, my facts have mostly come from this thread.
|
On January 28 2014 05:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 04:53 nunez wrote:On January 28 2014 04:22 Greem wrote:On January 28 2014 03:26 Crushinator wrote:On January 28 2014 01:33 Greem wrote:
Are we living in the same age ? I mean since when does the president of any country possesses some magicl powers to control everything ? Sure there are some legit politicians who went all the way to be a president by themselves, but most did so with help of some magnate, so the favours can be delievered aftewards with a great % of profit. Dont fool youself, changing a president ain't gonna change a thing as long as those behind him exist, welcome to corruption. It exist in every country, gently behind glorius red curtain. Sometimes its more clearly visible, sometimes its not. But what do you expect in politics other then a dagger behind a back. How many true-hearthed humanitarians politicians this world knew in last 50 years or so ? Not many i bet. And not every is intelligent enough to survive in this harsh enviroment. So to proclaim a revolution and use methods that this thugs are using on this EUROmaidan to change the man is charge is pathetic to say the least. I honestly don't know how to improve things or how to reduce corruption to aceptable levels, because lets be honest its never be at 0, but what i know is that its damn insulting to speak about this as some holy expedition to seek the truth and to restore the kingdom for people. Sometimes it is good for people to show their deep dissatisfaction in this way. An uprising of the people can be a catalyst for change, and by change I don't mean changing one corrupt official for another, or picking EU over Russia. Throwing molotov cocktails and plundering government buildingd isn't a very good way to bring about change. But it is a lot better than just sitting back, saying: Yeah corruption is bad, but its always been and always will be, its how things are here. Which, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is a common attitude in eastern Europe and Russia. I mean no offense. I think when violence of any kind appears, the goal and purpose of the side using it, is never true or noble, or tries to help in any way.They wanna make a not of noise , have the attention, scream , i believe not a single man on that square knows the pros and cons of integration or whos better suited to be a president and all those who suround him, they just follow "the voice".From what i've heard they vandalized 2 shops, burned them to the ground and 2 girls caught there who didn't shared they noble truth were striped or something like that. And i don't even know what could've happened off the camera and stories, people under blind fanatism do crazy things. elinquish the Raj in India, Clement Attlee, the then British prime minister, cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the Indian Army - the foundation of the British Empire in India- a Sadly i don't know any other case, but i think Mahatma Gandhi showed what can be done with really good intentions and no bloodbath, obviously if they only want "change" well they cannot do it any other way. They don't know how to change or what they wanna change, they just demand it, with all the juicy words like freedom , indepence, for the people, etc. violence against british colonial power played an important part in india's struggle for independence. are you suggesting it was unnecessary or are you oblivious to the fact? in any case if you want to draw comparisons you should substantiate. British decolonisation happened largely as a result of a recognition of the changing state of affairs following WWII and pressure from the new superpower, the United States. Where there was anticolonial violence, such as the Malayan Emergency, British forces remained and fought until the opposition were destroyed before continuing with decolonisation. A pacified stable state was considered a prerequisite for self rule. Violence delayed rather than accelerated decolonisation which had been a natural process of increasing colonial autonomy for over a century by then.
that is misleading at best. the efforts of the indian national army and the red fort trials: played a pivotal role during a very crucial phase of India's hsitoric march towards national liberation source
even BBC begrudgingly admits after the story being censored for a good while by the good 'ole empire: With the British now aware that the Indian army could no longer be relied upon by the Raj to do its bidding, independence followed soon after. source
|
United States41387 Posts
And yet Indian independence happened alongside independence in places that could be kept within the empire by force which in turn coincided with a deliberate British government policy of decolonisation which in itself was predated by a US push for British decolonisation which was agreed to a Potsdam. Making the argument that violent opposition was how these countries achieved national independence flies in the face of reality, the process started before the violent opposition, continued in places without violent opposition and was actually significantly slower in places with violent opposition. The two things appeared together in some instances but there is no evidence that one caused the other and quite a lot of evidence that it didn't.
|
On January 28 2014 06:49 KwarK wrote:
And yet Indian independence happened alongside independence in places that could be kept within the empire by force which in turn coincided with a deliberate British government policy of decolonisation which in itself was predated by a US push for British decolonisation which was agreed to a Potsdam. Making the argument that violent opposition was how these countries achieved national independence flies in the face of reality, the process started before the violent opposition, continued in places without violent opposition and was actually significantly slower in places with violent opposition. The two things appeared together in some instances but there is no evidence that one caused the other and quite a lot of evidence that it didn't.
conflating my claim that violence played an important part in the struggle with it being the method by which independence was achieved is poor form.
the struggle for indian independence predates any us push or british policy of decolonization. you claim that the violent events in indian struggle for independence are disjoint from the process that led to independence... pray tell, how were you able to make such a surgical distinction?
|
british decolonization started well before 1947
you cant ignore the increasing autonomy granted to many british colonies between ~1900 and WWII including in india it was a critical precursor to decolonization
and yeah violence played an important part, that violence being WWII. rather it was the threat of an indian rebellion which britain could not possibly win that played an important part, not actual violence itself.
every colony where the british faced violent resistance they fought back and repressed successfully it except in america and afghanistan and a few other places i forget. this includes india and it includes india in the 1945-1947 period and the prewar period as well.
|
Ukraine Prime Minister Resigns As Parliament Holds Crisis Debate
Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov has resigned at the start of a special session of the country's parliament aimed at defusing two months of unrest and an alarming escalation of violence.
On the eve of the session, President Viktor Yanukovych met with three opposition leaders and agreed to repeal controversial antiprotest laws that were passed by parliament on January 16, sparking intensified protests from government critics.
source
|
Russian Federation40183 Posts
On January 28 2014 04:47 Saryph wrote:
In what world do some of the posters in this thread live in to think that it's alright for police officers to throw Molotov cocktails/gasoline bombs at protesters, or to strip people naked, beat them, slash them with knives, or even kill them? To go into hospitals and beat patients for information?
Hell, I didn't even know police officers carried around knives for slashing/stabbing people.
Not certain what are you talking about. Also, since it is alright for journalists to exist as they are now, it is alright for police officers to do whatever the hell they are doing. Also, where have you gotten that police officers are the ones throwing gasoline bombs at protesters and not the other way around?
|
On January 28 2014 19:55 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 04:47 Saryph wrote:
In what world do some of the posters in this thread live in to think that it's alright for police officers to throw Molotov cocktails/gasoline bombs at protesters, or to strip people naked, beat them, slash them with knives, or even kill them? To go into hospitals and beat patients for information?
Hell, I didn't even know police officers carried around knives for slashing/stabbing people. Not certain what are you talking about. Also, since it is alright for journalists to exist as they are now, it is alright for police officers to do whatever the hell they are doing. Also, where have you gotten that police officers are the ones throwing gasoline bombs at protesters and not the other way around?
Yes the state of modern journalism is perfect justification for police brutality, obviously.
|
On January 28 2014 20:39 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 19:55 lolfail9001 wrote:On January 28 2014 04:47 Saryph wrote:
In what world do some of the posters in this thread live in to think that it's alright for police officers to throw Molotov cocktails/gasoline bombs at protesters, or to strip people naked, beat them, slash them with knives, or even kill them? To go into hospitals and beat patients for information?
Hell, I didn't even know police officers carried around knives for slashing/stabbing people. Not certain what are you talking about. Also, since it is alright for journalists to exist as they are now, it is alright for police officers to do whatever the hell they are doing. Also, where have you gotten that police officers are the ones throwing gasoline bombs at protesters and not the other way around? Yes the state of modern journalism is perfect justification for police brutality, obviously.
If a journalist, funded by foreign interests convinces you that you have the right to attack police, then yes, media propaganda is to blame.
|
On January 28 2014 20:58 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 20:39 Crushinator wrote:On January 28 2014 19:55 lolfail9001 wrote:On January 28 2014 04:47 Saryph wrote:
In what world do some of the posters in this thread live in to think that it's alright for police officers to throw Molotov cocktails/gasoline bombs at protesters, or to strip people naked, beat them, slash them with knives, or even kill them? To go into hospitals and beat patients for information?
Hell, I didn't even know police officers carried around knives for slashing/stabbing people. Not certain what are you talking about. Also, since it is alright for journalists to exist as they are now, it is alright for police officers to do whatever the hell they are doing. Also, where have you gotten that police officers are the ones throwing gasoline bombs at protesters and not the other way around? Yes the state of modern journalism is perfect justification for police brutality, obviously. If a journalist, funded by foreign interests convinces you that you have the right to attack police, then yes, media propaganda is to blame.
That totally sounds like a plausible explanation. Thank god that the blame for police brutality lies with foreign funded propoganda, that way Ukraine won't have to get into the messy business of sorting out its own police, but sadly shaking their fists at foreigners is all they can do. 
Must be comfortable to believe all important problems are with unidentified foreigners, saves society the worry of looking critically at itself.
|
Russian Federation40183 Posts
On January 28 2014 20:39 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 19:55 lolfail9001 wrote:On January 28 2014 04:47 Saryph wrote:
In what world do some of the posters in this thread live in to think that it's alright for police officers to throw Molotov cocktails/gasoline bombs at protesters, or to strip people naked, beat them, slash them with knives, or even kill them? To go into hospitals and beat patients for information?
Hell, I didn't even know police officers carried around knives for slashing/stabbing people. Not certain what are you talking about. Also, since it is alright for journalists to exist as they are now, it is alright for police officers to do whatever the hell they are doing. Also, where have you gotten that police officers are the ones throwing gasoline bombs at protesters and not the other way around? Yes the state of modern journalism is perfect justification for police brutality, obviously.
Yeah, because modern journalism creates police brutality, just as modern journalism on the other side can create protester's brutality. It is question of source. While my sources claim about peaceful throwing of gasoline bombs from protester's side, others can claim about the same from another.
|
Even though it may be a bit of a tangent, Russia vs EU has a tiny bit of influence on the situation in Ukriane. The meeting between Russia and EU will also take on the classic issue of human rights and Russia has prepared their 156 page report on the situation of human rights in EU:
The situation with human rights protection in the EU is far from being perfect, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in the report "On the situation with human rights in the European Union." The report first analyzes general trends in the EU, and then proceeds to problems in separate countries. One can only welcome the unexpected courage of Russia's Foreign Ministry in the criticism of Brussels.
The EU wants other countries to adopt alien views on homosexuality and gay marriage. The EU wants other countries to take such views as a norm of life and some natural social phenomenon worthy of support on the state level, the report said. The EU does not notice such violations if they take place inside the European Union. A human rights report said, for example, that 80 percent of Europeans, who suffered from violence in connection with their sexual orientation, do not report that to police, fearing homophobia in public institutions. Russian Pravda
Most of the rest of the points are well-documented and more or less taken from reliable, but very critical sources. All in all most of it contains completely legitimate concerns!
Still, the notion of Russia critizising EU on human rights takes a certain level of hypocricy given how the same organisations Russia cite in their critique calls Russia out for far worse problems on the same issues (Transparency (TI), Human Rights (ECHR) and Workers Rights (ILO)).
|
On January 28 2014 21:03 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 20:58 zeo wrote:On January 28 2014 20:39 Crushinator wrote:On January 28 2014 19:55 lolfail9001 wrote:On January 28 2014 04:47 Saryph wrote:
In what world do some of the posters in this thread live in to think that it's alright for police officers to throw Molotov cocktails/gasoline bombs at protesters, or to strip people naked, beat them, slash them with knives, or even kill them? To go into hospitals and beat patients for information?
Hell, I didn't even know police officers carried around knives for slashing/stabbing people. Not certain what are you talking about. Also, since it is alright for journalists to exist as they are now, it is alright for police officers to do whatever the hell they are doing. Also, where have you gotten that police officers are the ones throwing gasoline bombs at protesters and not the other way around? Yes the state of modern journalism is perfect justification for police brutality, obviously. If a journalist, funded by foreign interests convinces you that you have the right to attack police, then yes, media propaganda is to blame. That totally sounds like a plausible explanation. Thank god that the blame for police brutality lies with foreign funded propoganda, that way Ukraine won't have to get into the messy business of sorting out its own police, but sadly shaking their fists at foreigners is all they can do. Must be comfortable to believe all important problems are with unidentified foreigners, saves society the worry of looking critically at itself.
The insinuation was always a good tool to resolving problems. Especially when the one to blame is "an unspecified power". That goes back to 1917 when the red disease started to spread.
|
A Country blaming mainly outside influence/the EU/Russia/USA or even better "JOURNALISM" for its problems is like some redneck blaming immigrants for all his problems.
Its just dumb.
|
On January 28 2014 22:54 Velr wrote:
A Country blaming mainly outside influence/the EU/Russia/USA or even better "JOURNALISM" for its problems is like some redneck blaming immigrants for all his problems.
Its just dumb.
You are missing the point. If you think no outside power is 'training' and funding the protests you are delusional. Funny how whichever protests McCain shows up at end up destroying their own country, I'm sure they destroyed themselves all on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
