undefined | Better HN

0 pointspipy11y ago0 comments

I appreciate that you took time to write an answer.

> (I don't bother to look up your references, since it certainly won't be from mainstream media or similar.)

Then how can you possibly have an informed opinion if you limit your sources of information to Western mainstream media?

> You are contradicted by Wikipedia.

No, I am not, because I have provided quote about May polls, not February or March ones. February ones were made before overthrow of Yanukovich (Donetsk and Luhansk regions were one of the big electoral bases for Yanukovich), and March before the fight for federalization of Ukrainian State by the people of Donetsk and Luhansk regions was completely ignored by Kiev Government.

And it is very important difference from the sociological point of view, because it was also after the Odessa Massacre and Ukrainian Forces attack on Mariupol. BTW, the author of the quote, sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko is an author of The Guardian newspaper [1]. Is he not mainstream enough for you?

Which means that you've cross-checked one source and now erroneously claim that it is not credible.

> I have spent too much time on this. :-(

I can understand you. What is my point of view is that one should trust no single party or source of information to be credible and do research for oneself. And this is the only way to be free, as in Freedom.

> Any proofs against?

Food for thought:

"Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013" by Richard Lloyd, Former UN Weapons Inspector [2]

"Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything" (has number of first-party sources). [3]

"UN Investigator Undercuts NYT on Syria" by Robert Parry, former Newsweek and AP reporter [4]:

The lead author of the UN report on the Aug. 21 incident has contradicted the much-touted “vectoring” claims of a New York Times front-page story and Human Rights Watch, which has been pushing for a U.S. military intervention in Syria.

The UN inspectors have voiced uncertainty about who carried out the attack. At the press conference, Sellstrom admitted, “I don’t have information that would stand in court.” He also told Wall Street Journal writer Joe Lauria that both sides in the conflict had the “opportunity” and the “capability” to carry out chemical weapons attacks.

Etc. Wish you good luck!

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/profile/volodymyr-ishchenko

[2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006...

[3] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/classified-intelligen...

[4] http://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/23/un-investigator-undercu...

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

BugBrother11y ago· 2 in thread

This was not a waste of time after all, since I have seldom seen so hand picked sources.

You refuse to accept anything official from USA, and then quote conspiracy theories from a blogger!! :-)

About your claims about the Syrian chemical weapons attack:

The overheard communications (by Israelis and Americans) are lies, of course. And it is just more lies that the Syrian government shelled the attacked areas after the chemical attack to destroy the evidence!

Shameless liars about your Glorious Leader, those Westerners. :-) Uh, no... they hate Assad too! :-)

To be realistic, if there are state budget's involved, you can get any number of statements from individuals. Robert Parry might want to retire, who knows?

Here is a good source, with high credibility, about the second use of chemical weapons -- HRW (I assume the rebels had helicopters they used only for that bombing, then hid? :-) ):

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/13/syria-strong-evidence-gov...

And about the most well known attack:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-c...

It is easy to find similar from Amnesty and others.

(But HRW is just another part of the Western conspiracy against Rus.. Syria, only independent bloggers are dependable of course. Oh, wait...)

----------------

But the Syria claims was nothing.

A few minutes with Wikipedia made my day when I checked your claim that the referendum in May was dependable.

>>No, I am not, because I have provided quote about May polls, not February or March ones.

From my previous comment -- the opinions were totally different just ONE month earlier.

The relevant wikipedia page on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_status_referendum,_2014...

Money quote:

These results could not be independently verified.[29][63]

I am certain you have read some blogger than knows better than the liars at BBC and PewResearch. :-)

Then we have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_status_referendum,_2014...

group of pro-Russian separatists in possession of a 100,000 ballots already marked with a 'yes' vote for the referendum were captured

A campaign of intimidation, beatings, and hostage taking has forced many pro-Ukrainian activists and known opponents of secession to Russia to flee the region, leaving the referendum to take place without any dissent or opposing voices

And so on... More obvious lies!! :-)

So you claim a referendum whose result can't be verified [and after hunting of the opposition members!] is trustworthy and showed that all the opinions had totally changed in one month and resulted in a popular uprising... (No Russian military this time. Honest!)

Thanks for a good laugh. (My poor stomach. :-( )

Let me guess -- Wikipedia and its sources are just lies, you KNOW that the May vote was dependable because there is some blogger that support this, here too? You saw that on Putin's own media?

(I removed quotes about the previous poll faked by Putin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014 since that is just more democratic lies about your Glorious Leader? :-) )

pipyOP11y ago

1. Chief UN investigator states that he doesn't have information that would stand in court, on record.

2. Many US Congressmen that were given access to US secret proof have stated that it is dubious, on record.

Are these sources wrong or hand-picked? Which ones did I hand-pick, US Congressmen, or UN investigators, or, perhaps, both?

It was not enough evidence to stand in court, but apparently, there was enough evidence for the West to bomb Syria and cause immanent civilian deaths.

Wittingly or not, you are trying to change subject, twist the narrative and so on. It occurs to me that you Sir are not trying to be objective at all. Looks like here I'm the fool who's banging his head against the wall.

BugBrother11y ago

>>It occurs to me that you Sir are not trying to be objective at all.

1. You use bloggers as references while shrugging at serious references.

2. A single minute's check on wikipedia showed that your claims about the May vote is garbage.

Why should anyone takes you seriously after that?!

(I am a bit disappointed that you ignored this subject and didn't explain the conspiracies and lies about your Glorious Leader?)

-----

About Syrian chemical weapons:

Of course there weren't much physical proofs remaining, the Assad government shelled the target area a lot, to remove them...

The rebel side didn't have the type of artillery used, no one overheard any communications from them about this -- and the rebels didn't use that artillery on their enemy afterwards.

But if the rebels seems so unlikely, maybe it wasn't the Assads either but a third party. Elves? :-)

[I am repeating myself and my references here.]

(And bombing the Assads: Because of internal politics, Obama has left hundreds of thousands of Syrians to be killed by Russian weapons. It is an outrage.)

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse