• Macron, standing next to Putin, calls RT and Sputnik ‘agents of influence’
    56 replies, posted
[QUOTE=nulls;52291235]TIL intervening in a country slipping further and further to fascism after overthrowing a legitimate government = subverting democracy.[/QUOTE] lol Russia is run by a nationalist oligarchy that has used violence to put a boot on the neck of Ukraine, demanding that it return to a vassal state. It has invaded Ukrainian soil and supported a nationalist uprising in the east that regularly refuses to accept cease-fires and is armed by one of the most belligerent regimes in the world. All of that came because Ukraine wanted to join the European Union and sever its ties with Russia. You're insane.
[QUOTE=nulls;52291235]TIL intervening in a country slipping further and further to fascism after overthrowing a legitimate government = subverting democracy.[/QUOTE] Attempting to influence elections through subterfuge = subverting democracy
[QUOTE=nulls;52291235]TIL intervening in a country slipping further and further to fascism after overthrowing a legitimate government = subverting democracy.[/QUOTE] Government that sends snipers to murder civilians for protesting against them, seems pretty undemocratic
[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;52290768]Hahahaha. Oh, no. The conspiracy community has been almost completely coopted by radical right-wing politics. [B]Macron being shot by a trained bear with an AK-47 would blip on their radar as an attack by BLM.[/B][/QUOTE] Fucking Bear Lives Matter at it again.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52291268] Russia is run by a nationalist oligarchy[/QUOTE] Nice one. They're as far away from anything "nationalist" as one can get. It implies that anyone in Russian power structure gives a fuck about Russia in the first place. We're not an oligarchy either, that's actually becoming a dangerous misconception. Russia is run by a criminal ring (literally, you won't find any one person in power over here who isn't/wasn't at some point directly or indirectly involved in [i]bratva[/i]'s dealings). Putin just likes to play geopolitics (with predictable results) now that everything is settled and he's mostly free from 'running' the country (into the ground).
[QUOTE=IKTM;52291038]How did we go from "Bush did 9/11" to [I]this[/I]?[/QUOTE] conspiracy theorists used to be generally anti-government but apparently it's now partisan might be because trump is seen as anti-government since he's "not a politician", probably also helps he has a lot of promises that would make a conspiracy theorist moist
[QUOTE=gudman;52291430]Nice one. They're as far away from anything "nationalist" as one can get. It implies that anyone in Russian power structure gives a fuck about Russia in the first place. We're not an oligarchy either, that's actually becoming a dangerous misconception. Russia is run by a criminal ring (literally, you won't find any one person in power over here who isn't/wasn't at some point directly or indirectly involved in [i]bratva[/i]'s dealings). Putin just likes to play geopolitics (with predictable results) now that everything is settled and he's mostly free from 'running' the country (into the ground).[/QUOTE] I think the word I've seen bandied about here and there is 'kleptocracy', heh.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52291252]You cant tell me them invading the Cremia was in any way justifiable.[/QUOTE] One of Russia's largest naval base is in Crimea, 60% of Crimea's population identifies as Russian. If you think the Russian government is going to let an illegitimate hyper-nationalist right wing government take control of vital Russian territory, you're tripping some serious balls.
[QUOTE=nulls;52292352]One of Russia's largest naval base is in Crimea, 60% of Crimea's population identifies as Russian. If you think the Russian government is going to let an illegitimate hyper-nationalist right wing government take control of vital Russian territory, you're tripping some serious balls.[/QUOTE] Can you back up the "largest naval base" thing? Im fairly sure that was part of Ukraine and not Russia. And if Crimea really wanted to be part of Russia, surely they would have held a free referendum organised by the Ukrainian government (the one they did hold was bollocks and not free). What Russia did in Ukraine was fucking sickening. It was a power grab and not for the people. You know, you don't have to defend them. They're not communist anymore. ;)
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52292367]Can you back up the "largest naval base" thing? Im fairly sure that was part of Ukraine and not Russia. And if Crimea really wanted to be part of Russia, surely they would have held a free referendum organised by the Ukrainian government (the one they did hold was bollocks and not free). What Russia did in Ukraine was fucking sickening. It was a power grab and not for the people. You know, you don't have to defend them. They're not communist anymore. ;)[/QUOTE] The [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet"]Black Sea Fleet[/URL] is located in Crimea has been under Russian control since 1783. I'm not defending then because they were formerly communist (disregarding the fact that Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union as well). I'm defending them because there is a very real reason for being in Ukraine. Russia didn't just go "dude lets invade a former ally lmao". EDIT: A referendum hosted by either government is probably gonna be rigged. It needs to be organized by the citizens of Crimea.
[QUOTE=nulls;52292406]The [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet"]Black Sea Fleet[/URL] is located in Crimea has been under Russian control since 1783. I'm not defending then because they were formerly communist (disregarding the fact that Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union as well). I'm defending them because there is a very real reason for being in Ukraine. Russia didn't just go "dude lets invade a former ally lmao". EDIT: A referendum hosted by either government is probably gonna be rigged. It needs to be organized by the citizens of Crimea.[/QUOTE] What makes you assume that Crimea is going to be able to host its own referendum? I like how you say that a referendum hosted by either government is going to be rigged without mentioning that it was Russia that rigged the last one. Also, you mentioned a fleet. Not a port. A fleet. Mention a port that was Russian controlled but located in an area otherwise owned by Ukraine. They have no real reason to be in Ukraine other than power projection. Why was it not an issue for, I don't know, two decades that Crimea was part of Ukraine?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52292452] Also, you mentioned a fleet. Not a port. A fleet. Mention a port that was Russian controlled but located in an area otherwise owned by Ukraine. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] The Black Sea Fleet (Russian: Черноморский Флот, Chernomorsky Flot) is a large operational-strategic command of the Russian (and formerly Soviet) Navy, operating in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea since the late 18th century. Its ships are based in various harbors of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, [B]while its aviation and infrastructure is based in various locations in Crimea and Krasnodar Krai[/B]. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] They have no real reason to be in Ukraine other than power projection. Why was it not an issue for, I don't know, two decades that Crimea was part of Ukraine?[/QUOTE] Probably had something to do with the fact that Ukraine had a legitimate government than wasn't funded by the US to act against Russian interest.
[QUOTE=nulls;52292482][B]Probably had something to do with the fact that Ukraine had a legitimate government than wasn't funded by the US to act against Russian interest.[/B][/QUOTE] Prove this.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52292485]Prove this.[/QUOTE] every goddamn time prove putin kills journalists (hint: you cant) prove assad has been using chemical weapons (hint: you also cant) guess what, there doesn't need to be a definitive fucking source backed by thousands of scientists and researchers to logically assume something to be true. enough with this dumb monopoly on what constitutes as the "truth", as long as it's backed by a .pdf with pies and charts, nevermind the people who were actually in charge of compiling the data in the first place. you cant argue fucking anything on the internet without some pseudo-intelligent fraud whining about sources only accepted by their respective selection bias and agendas
It's almost as if making a claim requires evidence. Otherwise it's fucking horseshit pulled out of your ass. By the way - I never claimed either of that. You're doing the classic thing of deflecting. Either argue a damn actual point instead of engaging in pseudo-intelligent fraud whining about someone [B][I]being skeptical and asking for proof of claims.[/I][/B]
[QUOTE=Melnek;52292514]every goddamn time prove putin kills journalists (hint: you cant) prove assad has been using chemical weapons (hint: you also cant) guess what, there doesn't need to be a definitive fucking source backed by thousands of scientists and researchers to logically assume something to be true. enough with this dumb monopoly on what constitutes as the "truth", as long as it's backed by a .pdf with pies and charts, nevermind the people who were actually in charge of compiling the data in the first place. you cant argue fucking anything on the internet without some pseudo-intelligent fraud whining about sources only accepted by their respective selection bias and agendas[/QUOTE] What on earth are you even talking about
I don't know, to rely on 'logical assumptions' for very big claims is the sort of thing groups like /pol/ subsist on. You look at things through a very narrow scope, your conscious or unconscious bias feeding you at the same time, and then things look like they make sense so it HAS to be right because it just makes so much sense.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52292485]Prove this.[/QUOTE] Apologies, I was incorrect. In 2012 the US condemned then Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych (the one that Putin supported and was ousted) and tried to get NATO to suspend all agreements with Ukraine over the imprisonment of politician Yulia Tymoshenko over fraud and embezzlement. So, just general meddling in foreign relations. Not direct funding.
[QUOTE=nulls;52292549]Apologies, I was incorrect. In 2012 the US condemned then Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych (the one that Putin supported and was ousted) and tried to get NATO to suspend all agreements with Ukraine over the imprisonment of politician Yulia Tymoshenko over fraud and embezzlement.[/QUOTE] May I ask where you got your earlier claim? I also have never seen anything that indicates, to me, that anything was wrong about the Euromaiden protests, and that it was largely the previous Ukrainian government that cause problems. May I ask what you think? EDIT: what's your source for your current claim actually?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52292531]It's almost as if making a claim requires evidence. Otherwise it's fucking horseshit pulled out of your ass. By the way - I never claimed either of that. You're doing the classic thing of deflecting. Either argue a damn actual point instead of engaging in pseudo-intelligent fraud whining about someone [B][I]being skeptical and asking for proof of claims.[/I][/B][/QUOTE] how do you prove, for example, covert operations or political talks happened behind closed doors, if no one reported on it? your metric of what constitutes as "proof" is retarded. connect the dots and think for yourself instead of constantly relying on what some news article dictates to you. [QUOTE=Lambeth;52292542]What on earth are you even talking about[/QUOTE] i brought putin ordering the killings of journalists as an example of things that have never been proven, but are still taken as fact on this forum. where's the proof? where's the bbc article that definitely states that a particular journalist has been killed by the russian government? there is no article to prove this. no "source". but we know it fucking happened, because of circumstances and logical assumptions. because putin is a former intelligence agent and probably knows how to stage an assassination without leaving any traces. and no, these mental tools aren't fucking exclusive to /pol/ like Bertie claimed. all of us, regularly, operate based assumptions. constantly demanding "proofs" for every claim without even bothering to piece shit together yourself to tackle the opposing argument is anti-intellectual by nature. just to clarify, im not talking about falsifiable claims that are rooted in fact. im talking about concepts that we have no way of either confirming or denying because there is no evidence to point one way or the other, because that's the fucking point of things such as these. political espionage isn't meant to be transparent.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52292559]May I ask where you got your earlier claim? [/QUOTE] I was misinformed regarding US-Ukraine relations before the annexation of Crimea. [QUOTE] I also have never seen anything that indicates, to me, that anything was wrong about the Euromaiden protests, and that it was largely the previous Ukrainian government that cause problems. May I ask what you think? [/QUOTE] Euromaiden protests were primarily about the Ukrainian government not wanting to join the EU, and instead strengthening ties with Russia. Some of The parties that gained power in the new government following the ousting of Yanukovych are hypernationalist, even borderline fascist though. If anything, if was a powergrab by Ukrainian nationalists. [QUOTE] EDIT: what's your source for your current claim actually?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-resolution/466"]https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-resolution/466[/URL]
No i meant your claim that it was interfering with a foreign nation.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52292610]No i meant your claim that it was interfering with a foreign nation.[/QUOTE] ??? Ukraine is a foreign nation to the United States. The US government condemned the Ukrainian government and got NATO to suspend all agreements with its government. Thus, the US government is interfering with foreign affairs.
[QUOTE=Melnek;52292598]how do you prove, for example, covert operations or political talks happened behind closed doors, if no one reported on it? your metric of what constitutes as "proof" is retarded. connect the dots and think for yourself instead of constantly relying on what some news article dictates to you.[/QUOTE] Okay I connected the dots: You are crazy.
[QUOTE=Melnek;52292598]how do you prove, for example, covert operations or political talks happened behind closed doors, if no one reported on it? your metric of what constitutes as "proof" is retarded. connect the dots and think for yourself instead of constantly relying on what some news article dictates to you. i brought putin ordering the killings of journalists as an example of things that have never been proven, but are still taken as fact on this forum. where's the proof? where's the bbc article that definitely states that a particular journalist has been killed by the russian government? there is no article to prove this. no "source". but we know it fucking happened, because of circumstances and logical assumptions. because putin is a former intelligence agent and probably knows how to stage an assassination without leaving any traces. and no, these mental tools aren't fucking exclusive to /pol/ like Bertie claimed. all of us, regularly, operate based assumptions. constantly demanding "proofs" for every claim without even bothering to piece shit together yourself to tackle the opposing argument is anti-intellectual by nature. just to clarify, im not talking about falsifiable claims that are rooted in fact. im talking about concepts that we have no way of either confirming or denying because there is no evidence to point one way or the other, because that's the fucking point of things such as these. political espionage isn't meant to be transparent.[/QUOTE] Someone who thinks as much as you clearly do shouldn't need an explanation as to why it's a slippery slope to stop demanding some kind of verifiable proof for claims made on events on a geopolitical scale. [editline]30th May 2017[/editline] Like you're literally trying to re-write argumentative logic and throw your version of what constitutes truth in people's faces because you can't accept things that fall outside of what you personally think is or isn't true. You can't turn objectivity into subjectivity just because you don't like how objectivity tastes.
:snip:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.