Russia firing artillery at Ukraine - Polidicks

[quote]Obama administration officials said Thursday that Russia is firing artillery from its own territory into Ukraine to hit Ukrainian military sites, pointing to escalating Russian involvement in the deadly conflict. [/quote] Source : [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/24/obama-administration-russia-firing-artillery-at-ukraine-military-targets/[/url]

Interesting, I would like to see some footage or evidence though, or at least a couple more sources. Fox is pretty much the RT of America. [editline]Edited:[/editline] From the globe and mail: “We have new evidence that the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful multiple rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. Harf, speaking at a regular media briefing, said the information was based on intelligence reports. [b]“I can’t tell you what the information is based on,” [/b] she said. The US keeps doing this "just trust us" thing without providing any solid proof.

Another source if anyone wants to question Fox [URL]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/two-ukraine-parties-quit-parliament-coalition-to-trigger-election/article19736487/[/URL] It's at the top. [url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/24/russian-artillery-fired-eastern-ukraine/13108615/[/url]

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/13/ukrainian-shell-russian-border-town-donetsk[/url] I suppose firing at military installations beats firing at towns and killing civilians. It is a shame that with the Parliment reshuffle tensions might have been eased but weren't. It would have been a good opportunity for the 3 sides to have dialog. Just to clear up confusion, the village shelled in the article is a Russian village, that is to say a different Donetsk than the rebel held Donetsk. The Ukrainian army shelled a Russian village killing a Russian civilian.

karimatrix soon stalker! When tovarish? NOW.

Source with more detail: [url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-into-ukraine/[/url] [QUOTE]As evidence that the Russians intend to deliver heavier multiple rocket launchers to separatist forces in Ukraine, Warren referred to activity at a site in southwestern Russia where the Russian military has provided training for Russian separatists and gathered heavy military equipment for their use. Senior intelligence officials referred to the site outside of Rostov on Tuesday when they made their case for why Russia had “created the conditions” for the shoot-down of the Malaysian airliner with a Russian-built SA-11 surface-to-air missile. Since the shoot-down “there’s been ongoing multiple rocket launcher activity at the Rostov site and multiple rocket launchers continue to depart and return to Rostov at irregular intervals,” Warren said. For the last month the Russian military has gathered between 10,000 and 12,000 troops along the border with Ukraine, officials said. The forces are arrayed along the border at varying distances, with some elements coming as close as five miles to the border with Ukraine, one official said. It has been difficult to determine what the Russian intent is for these forces, the official said, but the information released today indicates at least some of them have been engaged in artillery fire targeting Ukrainian military positions. [/QUOTE] There's more to it than just using their own artillery, the delivery and training in the operation of is also notable.

Cunts.

-snipperino misunderstooderino-

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28476153[/url] BBC is reporting on it too.

Oh my god, now we get to see all the Russian apologists backpedal at warp speed.

I'm not putting it past Russia but is there any proof that I can actually look at? Not just have someone say "yeah its true they are doing it".

The fuck is Russia even doing at this point. The rebels just shot down a passenger jet with their missiles and now they are supporting them even more?

[QUOTE=zin908;45490124]Oh my god, now we get to see all the Russian apologists backpedal at warp speed.[/QUOTE]No you won't.

[QUOTE=Aman;45490130]I'm not putting it past Russia but is there any proof that I can actually look at? Not just have someone say "yeah its true they are doing it".[/QUOTE] if white house aids are saying this is true then it probably is [editline]d[/editline] is this satire? only you can decide

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45490112]What does Ukraine vs Pro-Russian rebels activity have to do with a country attacking another country?[/QUOTE] I'm glad you asked. The village in the article is a Russia village. Not the Ukrainian village. Yes it goes by the same name. The Ukrainian army shelled a Russian village killing a Russian civilian.

[QUOTE=mix999;45490058]Interesting, I would like to see some footage or evidence though, or at least a couple more sources. Fox is pretty much the RT of America. The US keeps doing this "just trust us" thing without providing any solid proof.[/QUOTE] Lol except Fox isn't a state owned news outlet and actually vilifies the current government. Fox isn't "the US."

[QUOTE=Aman;45490130]I'm not putting it past Russia but is there any proof that I can actually look at? Not just have someone say "yeah its true they are doing it".[/QUOTE] They're citing human sources that cannot be named publicly, which basically means spies and bribed people that if named would be outed immediately (and likely killed). There isn't much else they can present you with unless Russia starts giving us data from or allows us to perform surveillance flyovers, which they won't.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45490224]I'm glad you asked. The village in the article is a Russia village. Not the Ukrainian village. Yes it goes by the same name. The Ukrainian army shelled a Russian village killing a Russian civilian.[/QUOTE] I should learn to read before asking next time.

[QUOTE=Explosions;45490242]Lol except Fox isn't a state owned news outlet and actually vilifies the current government. Fox isn't "the US."[/QUOTE] Not state owned !=> not having pursuing an agenda. Pretty much all sides of the US government dislike Russia and it is probably in most American peoples interests to subjugate Russia .'. fox news can still post bias articles about Russia. The American people have been brought up nearly their entire lives being told Russia is the bad guys, they find it reassuring to hear so and so by telling people Russia are the bad guys Fox will get more views. Eg. A paper sticking up for Russia would be laughed off as "russia propaganda" or some nutty conspiracy magazine. No body would read it in the US. The whole not state owned => reliable is utter fallacy.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45490270]Not state owned !=> not having pursuing an agenda. Pretty much all sides of the US government dislike Russia and it is probably in most American peoples interests to subjugate Russia .'. fox news can still post bias articles about Russia. The American people have been brought up nearly their entire lives being told Russia is the bad guys, they find it reassuring to hear so and so by telling people Russia are the bad guys Fox will get more views. Eg. A paper sticking up for Russia would be laughed off as "russia propaganda" or some nutty conspiracy magazine. No body would read it in the US. The whole not state owned => reliable is utter fallacy.[/QUOTE] It's funny how people put up this kind of argument, and then complain when people question whether Russian State news sites are biased. It's like going to a store and saying "Both TVs are overpriced" when one is $20 over and the other is $20,000 over.

[QUOTE=Thlis;45490312]It's funny how people put up this kind of argument, and then complain when people question whether Russian State news sites are biased. [/quote] I'm not saying Russian news isn't bias. I'm saying fox news is. I accept that RT is one of the more bias sources out there, this is why I try not to use it as a source. [quote] It's like going to a store and saying "Both TVs are overpriced" when one is $20 over and the other is $20,000.[/QUOTE] The degree to which they are bias depends on the subject at hand. When it comes to something as polarised as this I think they are roughly equal, that is to say. Fox smears Russia, RT smears US. Both using anecdotal evidence and out of context pictures to support their stories. I would personally avoid using either for the time being. If you find them to be the only source try to find where they get their stats from and come to your own conclusions, then if the stats are valid post those.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45490270]Not state owned !=> not having pursuing an agenda. Pretty much all sides of the US government dislike Russia and it is probably in most American peoples interests to subjugate Russia .'. fox news can still post bias articles about Russia. The American people have been brought up nearly their entire lives being told Russia is the bad guys, they find it reassuring to hear so and so by telling people Russia are the bad guys Fox will get more views. Eg. A paper sticking up for Russia would be laughed off as "russia propaganda" or some nutty conspiracy magazine. No body would read it in the US. The whole not state owned => reliable is utter fallacy.[/QUOTE] lol who said fox is reliable

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45490377] When it comes to something as polarised as this [B]I think they are roughly equal[/B], that is to say. Fox smears Russia, RT smears US. Both using anecdotal evidence and out of context pictures to support their stories. I would personally avoid using either for the time being.[/QUOTE] Yeah right, [URL]http://www.stopfake.org/en/rt-covers-the-shooting-down-of-mh17/[/URL] It's not like RT covers an anchor quitting on air by saying that she is uneducated and that you are offering to send her to a warzone to get "educated".

[QUOTE=Explosions;45490242]Lol except Fox isn't a state owned news outlet and actually vilifies the current government. Fox isn't "the US."[/QUOTE] Quoting everything that comes out of a white house press briefing or a state representatives mouth as absolute truth is just as bad, it could even be considered worse because that way people don't immediately see the large amount of government influence behind source because it's "independent". [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;45490256]They're citing human sources that cannot be named publicly, which basically means spies and bribed people that if named would be outed immediately (and likely killed). There isn't much else they can present you with unless Russia starts giving us data from or allows us to perform surveillance flyovers, which they won't.[/QUOTE] True. At this point it's slowly devolving into a he said she said carousel. Overall though I would say Russia has more physical proof released, while the US is asking people to trust their word. All of this conflict is getting quite maddening. As one situation seems to be deescalating another one always pops up.

The US state department is impartial, clear and truthful.

[QUOTE=mix999;45490441] Overall though I would say Russia has more physical proof released[/QUOTE] Source it then, I am sure we would be glad to see actual proof. [QUOTE=laserguided;45490451]The US state department is impartial, clear and truthful.[/QUOTE] Is that really the best you can do right now?

[QUOTE=Thlis;45490452]Source it then, I am sure we would be glad to see actual proof. Is that really the best you can do right now?[/QUOTE] You disagree with my statement?

[QUOTE=laserguided;45490451]The US state department is impartial, clear and truthful.[/QUOTE] Thanks for dropping in and telling us you believe this is true. Clearly in no way you are indicating in a sarcastic way that this gentleman that voiced this information to the media is lying.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45490465]Thanks for dropping in and telling us you believe this is true. Clearly in no way you are indicating in a sarcastic way that this gentleman that voiced this information to the media is lying.[/QUOTE] I am not, I put my full trust in the U.S. government to deliver the truth.

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;45490391]lol who said fox is reliable[/QUOTE] Explosions statement about fox not being state owned and therefore more reliable than RT. I argue they are both bad on this topic since they will both spin data for their respective side. The othergay saying [quote]It's like going to a store and saying "Both TVs are overpriced" when one is $20 over and the other is $20,000.[/quote] This comparison suggest 1 is 1000 times worse than the other. I argue that no, the gap between them, in this case, is much smaller. The biggest difference between state owned and non state owned occurs on reporting of internal matters. As I said for a polarised thing like this Fox will spin its stories to be against Russia and against the rebels. State owned media for a country opposing Russia would do the same thing. As a follow up to this. People say don't post RT. I say don't post any source which is clearly impartial and bias.