Ukraine sniping problem...

[Dr. Keith]

Of course, history has never been a good way of portioning out countries in the first place, since every modern country has had very different borders throughout their existence.

Si, senor.

 

[dudalb]

A different conversation entirely.



Oh boy. Yeah...you go on ahead believing whatever. But Crimea being "historically part of Russia" is simply wrong.

The whole "Khazar" theory never leads to anyplace good.

 

[uke2se]

I suggest this thread be moved to Conspiracy theories.

I wholeheartedly second this motion.

ETA: It takes balls to claim Khrushchev was an Ukrainian and link to a page that shows that he was a Russian.

 

[lopeyschools]

Living in the Ukraine makes one a Ukrainian.

So he wasn't made Russian by living in Russia?

 

[Cleon]

The whole "Khazar" theory never leads to anyplace good.

It is, however, a rather good indication that the proponent is getting their information from less than academically reputable sources.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Thread super-derailed. I suggest move to wherever.

 

[icebear]

So he wasn't made Russian by living in Russia?

He lived in Ukrain by PREFERENCE. He lived in Russia when Stalin ordered it.

 

[icebear]

Thread super-derailed. I suggest move to wherever.

SOP for some here seems to be to derail the thread once it's obvious that they can't really compete in knowledge or logic.

 

[Caustic Logic]

SOP for some here seems to be to derail the thread once it's obvious that they can't really compete in knowledge or logic.

Definitely. But it's your thread and you're not guarding the rails. In fact you're actually helping de-rail by engaging in completely off-topic arguments instead of shutting them down and sending them to the other places.

ETA: I started it with my too-subtle sarcasm. Crimea move = provoked, and = not the subject here.

They also suggest it gets moved to the CT forum to laugh at (they laugh wherever tho). I moved against that above.

This is a fascinating subject and worth a good thread. I won't take over the thread, but might just start a better one later if this one fails.

 

[uke2se]

SOP for some here seems to be to derail the thread once it's obvious that they can't really compete in knowledge or logic.

Like the knowledge that Khrushchev was a Russian?

 

[fuelair]

I wholeheartedly second this motion.

ETA: It takes balls to claim Khrushchev was an Ukrainian and link to a page that shows that he was a Russian.

I may be overthinking this, but are lost marbles not balls???

 

[Joey McGee]

So some guy talking about a conspiracy theory is now evidence for the conspiracy theory. Layer upon layer of glorious stupidity. Thanks for the laughs guys.

I also appreicated the grouping of Fox News, The Daily Fail and globalresearch as sources, priceless.

Love watching the twoofers go to bat for the Russians, Jim Jones and friends donating to the Soviet communist party comes to mind.

 

[lopeyschools]

He lived in Ukrain by PREFERENCE. He lived in Russia when Stalin ordered it.

His whole life? Except you know, the parts where he prefered not to live in the ukraine and instead lived in other parts of the world?

Are you not able to read the wikipedia entry you posted? Maybe you should read it again.

Also you didn't answer my question, even if he prefered to live in the Amazon jungle would that make him amazonian?

 

[LSSBB]

This isn't true. The original version was that Yanukovic simply sent his "Berkut" special forces who killed random protesters, while the news that also a lot of police men were killed was rarely mentioned. This led to the lately usual "he's killing his own people" narrative.

By now there's not much discussion about the existence of snipers who shot both protesters and police, but that's only a thing of the last week or two. Now the question is "whodunit?".

We few who smelled it from the beginning warned that it will be blamed on Russia by those who were finally forced to investigate what Paet told Ashton was a crime likely commited by their own political friends.

This hasn't happened so far, at least not big time, maybe because it requires too many twists of logic to think that the Russians thought it a good idea to provoke the coup to then have a pretext to mess with Crimea.

The latest information in regards to the perpetrators came yesterday through Russian mainstream TV, an interview with Yanukovic's head of security service SBU. Two reasons already to not believe what he says, right? Well, I suspect it is the Russian official story by now, so taking a look at the English translation might be of interest anyway. Very short essence of a detailed story: He blames two teams of mercenaries, 20 in total, commanded or at least protected in their actions by Andriy Parubiy, the new head of Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council and the guy we all agreed is a Nazi or at least extremely close. With help from an SBU partly infiltrated by the CIA.

So psychic noses were able to sniff a complete conjecture, from the beginning?

Wait, this is a skeptics forum, is it not? Is there any hard evidence of who these snipers are, whatsoever?

Eta: Is it even certain there was only one group or side they were working for? Couldn't there be two completely independent sets of snipers?

 

[Caustic Logic]

So psychic noses were able to sniff a complete conjecture, from the beginning?

Hey, thx for being unusually on-topic.

Psychic is not the right word when it's been seen and documented before, and all the hallmarks appear. Also conjecture is probably not the best word for the state of evidence at this point. But yes, some of us suspected this from the outset, before the supporting evidence started tumbling out.

Wait, this is a skeptics forum, is it not? Is there any hard evidence of who these snipers are, whatsoever?

A fair Q. Let's skip "hard evidence" and say hard proof is lacking, of course, for any of these competing stories. Circumstantial evidence, as considered by multiple theories seeking to explain it, says the snipers served mainly to kill protesters in the President's name to spark the mob that stood ready to be sparked. This suggests protesters themselves, not the government or anyone else.

The video evidence shows the worst or perhaps all of the murderous sniping of unarmed activists (I can count at least 20 shot and most killed, within a span of maybe 15 minutes) came from the Hotel Ukraine, which was generally insurgent-held. I don't buy their vague claim that an x-villain sniper was working from a room they failed to secure, and there's no good reason to buy it.

And if we can ever get to it, there are other clues like activist dodginess and shifting stories, especially about the hotel, about what the security forces in the kill zone actually did (run for their lives just before, leaving it cleared and in insurgent hands - an important part of not getting your sniper shot before his work is done)

It's not some proven case yet, but there's a lot going on here that makes it well worth looking over.

Eta: Is it even certain there was only one group or side they were working for? Couldn't there be two completely independent sets of snipers?

No, but that's everyone's presumption so far, and a logical one. They seemed intent on demonizing the president and forcing his ouster, at just the time people were prepared to follow up on that. The blame variously is laid on the government (first force?), "protesters" or coalition (second force?) or non-Ukrainian ("third force" per new Interior and Health ministers, both suggesting or specifying Russia). It seems silly to think two of those would agree, except the alleged Russian motive does dovetail perfectly with the agenda of the second force, who I suspect brought the sniper(s) in.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Can the mods, a mod split-off some of the Crimea posts to the proper thread? ("What's wrong with..." is maybe best) This became almost unreadable barely into page one. I apologize for my part in that.

So some guy talking about a conspiracy theory is now evidence for the conspiracy theory. Layer upon layer of glorious stupidity. Thanks for the laughs guys.

I also appreicated the grouping of Fox News, The Daily Fail and globalresearch as sources, priceless.

Love watching the twoofers go to bat for the Russians, Jim Jones and friends donating to the Soviet communist party comes to mind.

You aren't the only one layering flippant scorn where it doesn't belong, but man, was that extra thick and stupid. You deserve singling out.

"Some guy" is a respected diplomat who just did a fact-finding mission to the relevant place. His nation has no interest in discrediting the new government; in fact, the Lithuanians were/are strong supporters of ousting Yanukovych and bringing Ukraine into the EU fold. Note how they tried to downplay the comments and failed. Paet was caught here speaking candidly, supposedly off-the-record, and thus more reliably and truthfully than he or any cohorts would speak in public. It's hard to imagine a more credible source for such a thing.

How did "Fox News" manage to put words in the new Health Minister's mouth, or any of the other people cited in the AP report that Fox News, among others, ran? You have no idea. The Daily Fail simply didn't fail in this case. Why does the clever nickname matter then? Gloabal Research - so what? You don't trust the AP, or the new government you're probably excited about otherwise, so why does your blanket dismissal of that matter?

Not knowing the slightest what you're talking about, while jumping to laugh at the real murder of Ukrainian people and those in Ukraine and elsewhere who are realistically worried about the who and why and what next of it all ... This, Joey, is a good formula for fail and you did it full tilt.

Sorry to lay it on a bit thick, but despite that ... can you acknowledge that you spouted off in total ignorance here, and move on to either discuss or get out of the way? Or will you stand your ground and add another filet of sizzling stupid?

BTW if anyone here still buys the theory that Yanukovych and his law enforcement people conspired to kill a few unarmed protesters (and some of their own cops), just as the mob was built up, had the Berkut cleared out, and a clear path to stomp the parliament - as alleged at the time - don't take it to the CT forum! It's one of the valid theories about the conspiracy behind the sniper killings (or did it just sort of happen?) It's worth discussing here in detail. Kruschev's lineage is not.

 

[icebear]

One question which nobody is asking is this: To what extent is the sniping episode and the presumed legitimacy of blaming it on Yanukovich and/or Russians serving as a pretext for American attempts at involvement at this point? SHOULD the US government be going forward with ANYTHING here before the question is resolved?

As I see it, the US has gone to the well a couple of too many times with false-flag ops over the past couple of decades beginning with SlicK Clinton and Izetbegovic and their 5000 dead bodies, up to the most recent thing of trying to blame the use of sarin gas on Assad in Syria and, past some point, the world has seen this little show often enough that they get wise to it. They're probably starting to view us as a bunch of dangerous lunatics.

 

[Donal]

He lived in Ukrain by PREFERENCE. He lived in Russia when Stalin ordered it.

It seems more like he crossed the border into Ukraine to find work. All the references to his time there talk about the manual labor he was doing.

So, that makes him Ukrainian?

 

[LSSBB]

Hey, thx for being unusually on-topic.

Psychic is not the right word when it's been seen and documented before, and all the hallmarks appear. Also conjecture is probably not the best word for the state of evidence at this point. But yes, some of us suspected this from the outset, before the supporting evidence started tumbling out.



A fair Q. Let's skip "hard evidence" and say hard proof is lacking, of course, for any of these competing stories. Circumstantial evidence, as considered by multiple theories seeking to explain it, says the snipers served mainly to kill protesters in the President's name to spark the mob that stood ready to be sparked. This suggests protesters themselves, not the government or anyone else.

The video evidence shows the worst or perhaps all of the murderous sniping of unarmed activists (I can count at least 20 shot and most killed, within a span of maybe 15 minutes) came from the Hotel Ukraine, which was generally insurgent-held. I don't buy their vague claim that an x-villain sniper was working from a room they failed to secure, and there's no good reason to buy it.

And if we can ever get to it, there are other clues like activist dodginess and shifting stories, especially about the hotel, about what the security forces in the kill zone actually did (run for their lives just before, leaving it cleared and in insurgent hands - an important part of not getting your sniper shot before his work is done)

It's not some proven case yet, but there's a lot going on here that makes it well worth looking over.



No, but that's everyone's presumption so far, and a logical one. They seemed intent on demonizing the president and forcing his ouster, at just the time people were prepared to follow up on that. The blame variously is laid on the government (first force?), "protesters" or coalition (second force?) or non-Ukrainian ("third force" per new Interior and Health ministers, both suggesting or specifying Russia). It seems silly to think two of those would agree, except the alleged Russian motive does dovetail perfectly with the agenda of the second force, who I suspect brought the sniper(s) in.

When is a "hallmark", and someone's personal view of what is "logical", evidence? What if the person who thinks it is "logical" is wrong?

 

[LSSBB]

One question which nobody is asking is this: To what extent is the sniping episode and the presumed legitimacy of blaming it on Yanukovich and/or Russians serving as a pretext for American attempts at involvement at this point? SHOULD the US government be going forward with ANYTHING here before the question is resolved?

As I see it, the US has gone to the well a couple of too many times with false-flag ops over the past couple of decades beginning with SlicK Clinton and Izetbegovic and their 5000 dead bodies, up to the most recent thing of trying to blame the use of sarin gas on Assad in Syria and, past some point, the world has seen this little show often enough that they get wise to it. They're probably starting to view us as a bunch of dangerous lunatics.

Assumes facts not in evidence, regarding "false flags". Conspiracy Theory forum is that way --------->