70,000 rally in Kiev in fresh show of force - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Explosions;43855088]Thing is the protests didn't become what they are until he tried to squash them.[/QUOTE] What they 'are', aka a reckless riot filled with violent ultra right-winged fascists. The physical organization of these protests, the building of barricades around squares, much of the camp construction and policing, and the pitched and sometimes deadly battles with police are almost entirely the work of the extreme right. The majority of the people at Euromaidan appear to be either supporters of conventional, centrist or liberal opposition political parties, or pro-European citizens without much interest in party politics at all, but they aren't doing anything. They are non-violent, while practically everything you heard about the protesters like police clashes and other are entirely done by the right-winged extremists.

[QUOTE=Melnek;43855194]What they 'are', aka a reckless riot filled with violent ultra right-winged fascists. The physical organization of these protests, the building of barricades around squares, much of the camp construction and policing, and the pitched and sometimes deadly battles with police are almost entirely the work of the extreme right. The majority of the people at Euromaidan appear to be either supporters of conventional, centrist or liberal opposition political parties, or pro-European citizens without much interest in party politics at all, but they aren't doing anything. They are non-violent, while practically everything you heard about the protesters like police clashes and other are entirely done by the right-winged extremists.[/QUOTE] I'd like some sources please, if you're going to make these claims.

[QUOTE=Melnek;43854820] And taking into account the amount of corruption in Ukraine, guess where most of those European funds will go to? Pockets of individuals who are well-versed in the exploitation of monetary governmental 'assistance'.[/QUOTE] You're the rather ironic one to be talking about government corruption, considering you're supporting Ukraine becoming closer to Russia, aka: corruption simulator 2014 winter games edition.

[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ultra-right-wing-movement-has-become-sharp-edge-of-ukraine-protests/article16761189/[/url] [url]http://world.time.com/2014/02/04/ukraine-dmitri-yarosh-kiev/[/url] [url]http://world.time.com/2014/01/28/ukraine-kiev-protests-thugs/[/url] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/ukraine-fascists-oligarchs-eu-nato-expansion[/url] [url]http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/29/ukraine-and-the-rebirth-of-fascism/[/url] [url]http://www.thenation.com/article/178013/ukrainian-nationalism-heart-euromaidan[/url] [editline]10th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=draugur;43855220]You're the rather ironic one to be talking about government corruption, considering last I knew, you supported the Russian government.[/QUOTE] You people only seem to only read what you want to read, and interpret things the way only you wish to interpret them as a way of discrediting me with some sly backhanded remarks about previous posts I've never actually posted. I've never "supported" any government. Just because I don't vehemently oppose a government doesn't mean I can't rationalize its actions or at least try to better understand the motives behind them, and if I do understand the motives to a degree I feel is appropriate, I'll make a post about it trying to offset the usual circlejerk that forms in SH on any given topic. Because usually when there's a circlejerk, it's almost always either not entirely justified or the topic circlejerked around isn't fully understood.

Ridiculous. I never said there were no right-wing groups involved in the protests or even that they are not leading the violent resistance. But the sources you suppled all agree that the main body of the protests is made up of liberal opposition groups. You said that the protests are "a reckless riot filled with violent ultra right-winged fascists," but your own sources disagree with this assessment.

[QUOTE=Explosions;43855366] But the sources you suppled all agree that the main body of the protests is made up of liberal opposition groups.[/QUOTE] ...which don't do much of anything and as such would have no real effects on the outcome of the protests. This forms a threat because the Ukrainian people don't really seem to care much for the fascists that are surely taking an extensive foothold in the fight for 'democracy', and because of this, the entire point of the protests is long-lost and is a facade to simply put Ukrainian right-winged, xenophobic nationalists into power. They also happen to be against Russian influence by pure coincidence, so it seems they are exempt from criticism on their views on human rights for minorities and immigrants. Everything is so much more complicated and clusterfucked in these protests that being in favor of them is being in favor of pretty much destroying the country from inside-out. Putting it into simplified and childish notions like "president is bad, get rid of president" is reckless short-term thinking that usually leads to maniacs getting into power.

[QUOTE=Melnek;43855461]...which don't do much of anything and as such would have no real effects on the outcome of the protests.[/quote] I disagree highly. The president has already promised constitutional reform. Do you think this was the doing of violent right-wing groups? Was the president so scared of these violent attacks that he is just bowing to the demands of radicals? No, and if they were such a threat then the government would have had a much stronger response. [quote]This forms a threat because the Ukrainian people don't really seem to care much for the fascists that are surely taking an extensive foothold in the fight for 'democracy', and because of this, the entire point of the protests is long-lost and is a facade to simply put Ukrainian right-winged, xenophobic nationalists into power. They also happen to be against Russian influence by pure coincidence, so it seems they are exempt from criticism on their views on human rights for minorities and immigrants.[/quote] I think you're overestimating the power of these radicals. I haven't had any impression that these protests are being run solely for the purposes of these right-wing groups, and I haven't read or heard any such suspicions anywhere else. Even the sources you posted disagree. You seem to be the only one convinced that the protests have been hijacked by the violent radicals. [quote]Everything is so much more complicated and clusterfucked in these protests that being in favor of them is being in favor of pretty much destroying the country from inside-out. Putting it into simplified and childish notions like "president is bad, get rid of president" is reckless short-term thinking that usually leads to maniacs getting into power.[/QUOTE] Now you're just strawmanning the positions of pro-protest Facepunchers to support your warped views.

[QUOTE=Explosions;43855535]I disagree highly. The president has already promised constitutional reform. Do you think this was the doing of violent right-wing groups? Was the president so scared of these violent attacks that he is just bowing to the demands of radicals? No, and if they were such a threat then the government would have had a much stronger response.[/QUOTE] Of course it was because of the radicals. The moment dozens of Berkut officers were getting hit with Molotov cocktails and many others were left with crippling wounds and scars for life was the moment the president decided to alleviate the pressure by promising a constitutional reform. Before the protest turned violent, the president clearly didn't give much of a shit when he approved those authoritarian laws effectively criminalizing right of assembly. [QUOTE=Explosions;43855535]I think you're overestimating the power of these radicals. I haven't had any impression that these protests are being run solely for the purposes of these right-wing groups, and I haven't read or heard any such suspicions anywhere else. Even the sources you posted disagree. You seem to be the only one convinced that the protests have been hijacked by the violent radicals.[/QUOTE] I think you're underestimating the radicals, and I haven't said the protests were being run for the purposes of the right-wing groups, but rather than they use the protests as a cover to gain foothold in the country - which is exactly what is said in the sources I've posted. [quote]Despite their history of extreme intolerance, Pravy Sektor has won the admiration of a surprising number of mainstream protest organizers. “The real extremists are on the government side – some see the Pravy Sektor people as being too extreme, but we need them now,” says Andrey Dzyndzya, a founder of AutoMaidan, which started as a car owners’ protest group against highway-police corruption and became a major organizing force in the protests. [b]“We need their kind of radicalism to support the revolution.”[/b][/quote] [quote]Most political experts do not believe Pravy Sektor’s popularity would translate into seats in Ukraine, a country that has not traditionally had strong support for the far right. “Their popularity has been rising only due to public attention,” says Volodymyr Fesenko, head of Kiev’s Centre for Political Studies. “People support it not because they share its far-right ideology, but because they view it as the opposition’s army. Will Pravy Sektor gain if it goes into politics? I don’t think so, I even believe that they wouldn’t get into parliament.”[/quote] And this is dangerous, because they're using the justification of extreme violence to oppose extreme violence, and guess where that usually leads to? Using this type of justification means that while most wouldn't side with totalitarian views of the extreme, they may easily support them because they "need" a strong force to combat outside influence. It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp, it is a very real problem and you seem to be brushing it under the rag saying they are just isolated small groups of opportunist troublemakers. The goals of these right-winged Fascists-in-denial is revolutionizing Ukraine, their goals are far broader and wider than just getting rid of the current government, such sentiments are repeated over and over again by opposition leaders. [QUOTE=Explosions;43855535] Now you're just strawmanning the positions of pro-protest Facepunchers to support your warped views.[/QUOTE] How am I strawmanning when posts like these are being made? [QUOTE=Lachz0r;43855023]who cares? he clearly has shown he's a piece of shit that needs to be got rid of. worry about the economy and the EU later[/QUOTE]

If you want to stretch this, a man linked to the Ukrainian opposition tried to hijack and bomb a Turkish airliner.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;43849341][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Revolution]The Russians didn't give up in trying to improve their own lives and remove an oppressive monarchy[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_revolution]The Americans didn't give up defending their rights[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution]The French didn't give up in removing a tyrannical monarchy[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War]The Libyans didn't give up removing a despot that has been in place for decades[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexanderplatz_demonstration]The Germans didn't want to give up in reunifying their country [/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement]The Indians didn't want to give up in establishing their own country[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhai_Revolution]The Chinese didn't want to give up in abolishing a reigning and corrupt dynasty that was bring their country and their livelihoods to ruin[/url] [/QUOTE] Tbh, half of those countries ended up in disaster.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43855831]Tbh, half of those countries ended up in disaster.[/QUOTE] Not mention almost all of them had a dozen different factors that are in no way comparable to this. It's a nice way to appeal to those who are less historically informed though and lump all revolutions together.

[QUOTE=Melnek;43855705]Of course it was because of the radicals. The moment dozens of Berkut officers were getting hit with Molotov cocktails and many others were left with crippling wounds and scars for life was the moment the president decided to alleviate the pressure by promising a constitutional reform. Before the protest turned violent, the president clearly didn't give much of a shit when he approved those authoritarian laws effectively criminalizing right of assembly.[/QUOTE] You're making an assumption that only the radicals are capable of that kind of violence, any person when faced with the level of brutality of the police's response can retaliate in kind. Even assuming that all violent acts were done by one group, take away the numbers of every other protester and the president would give even less of a shit than if the protest was completely non-violent.

[QUOTE=RAG Frag;43856264]You're making an assumption that only the radicals are capable of that kind of violence, any person when faced with the level of brutality of the police's response can retaliate in kind. Even assuming that all violent acts were done by one group, take away the numbers of every other protester and the president would give even less of a shit than if the protest was completely non-violent.[/QUOTE] Except prior to the police's response, prior to the hospital kidnappings, protesters were practically abusing officers who just stood there and took it because they were not allowed to retaliate by order. They were there to keep the peace, period. Not stomp protesters by any means necessary (evidenced by early [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5itgKLG6HeY]video[/url] footage), it was only [i]after[/i] the entire thing escalated at the provocation of the rioters were police officials forced to use more sly tactics like kidnapping opposition leaders and the likes. The point is, the ones who escalated the protest were most likely those very same right-winged nationalists. The catalyst for the whole thing were not the police, but rather the government and in part, the people. So the whole "any person when faced with the level of brutality of the police's response can retaliate in kind." argument kind of falls flat on its face because the same thing could be reversed and would be just as correct. [quote]Even assuming that all violent acts were done by one group[/quote] They weren't done by one group, they were done by an umbrella group that contained many small and large groups that were all united under the same ideals, ultra right-wing politics and extreme nationalism. It's merely a blanket term.

Gotta admit Melnek has a pretty strong argument. It is pretty clear the protests have been hijacked by various groups to gain influence undemocratically. People see the protesters as some kind of bastion of democracy and righteousness, its a very very naive world view.

live stream? [URL]http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-action-spilno-tv/pop-out[/URL] here's a POV front line stream and an apparently unbiased news stream [url]http://5.ua/live[/url]

[QUOTE=Melnek;43855903]Not mention almost all of them had a dozen different factors that are in no way comparable to this. It's a nice way to appeal to those who are less historically informed though and lump all revolutions together.[/QUOTE] A government that's clamping down on people and having various factions and groups of people trying to take it down? This is pretty much a repeat from a bunch of revolutions and mass protests in the past.

[QUOTE=Melnek;43854820] examine and judge each international occurrence separately [/quote] [quote] while the same exact thing applies to siding with the Eastern bloc. [/quote] You so talking out of your ass.

[QUOTE=Killuah;43858598]You so talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE] The two are completely different things and are meant to be taken in entirely different contexts, this is literally grasping at straws for zingers instead of addressing the actual body of the argument. [editline]10th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;43858408]A government that's clamping down on people and having various factions and groups of people trying to take it down? This is pretty much a repeat from a bunch of revolutions and mass protests in the past.[/QUOTE] Yes let's simplify it down to second-grade terms why not Instead of reading just the title of a wikipedia article try actually reading it further to gain a better understanding of what you're on about. You are literally lumping all revolutions together because "they all had people protesting current regimes and stuff" which is completely ignoring the causes leading up to said revolutions, the way they were fought, the time period, the counter-revolutionaries, the results and the ramifications. For example the October revolution was not a good thing. It removed a fairly good and fair monarch who was modernizing Russia and didn't resort to mass-murder in the process, and replaced him with a psychopathic, paranoid dictator who killed millions. I guess it was worth it though, because to bring that loony into power the people "stood up for whats right" and other romanticized 'revolution' bullshit. Why do I even had to spell it out for you, this is basic stuff.

You did realize Stalin didn't come right after the Tsar? Lenin's vision of what he had for Russia was pretty much torn a part after his death. And how is it that a monarchy that threw his country into a massive war and made no efforts into actually helping serfs in his own country considered a fair monarch? Serfdom continued to exist during his reign even through his little paper declaration that freed them. Not to mention how his ministers took a massive shit on the general population of Russia when it came to fighting the war

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43855831]Tbh, half of those countries ended up in disaster.[/QUOTE] "Disaster"? Which ones? The United States emerged as a functioning democracy (yes, only if you were a white heterosexual male, but given the times, that was not surprising. Hardly a "disaster"). The French got Napoleon who, even though is associated with trying to conquer the world (an ambition he did not have), introduced many reforms in France, including the Napoleonic Code, one of the most influential legal documents on the planet, up there with the US Constitution. How much responsibility he had during the "Napoleonic" Wars is debatable, but it would be a mistake to say he shouldered most of that responsibility. Libya today is faring pretty well given the vicious nature of the civil war. Yes, it's had problems---no country after a revolution that bad could not have problems---but again, hardly what I'd call a disaster. Don't see the Alexanderplatz demonstration as a disaster. Nor the independence of India, who just had the usual problems of being a post-colonial country. Not minor problems, for sure, but nothing that qualifies as a disaster. The only ones I see that ended in "disaster", or at least caused as many problems as it solved, was the Russian Revolution and the Xinhai Revolution. China would go on to be in an age of warlords and foreign exploitation, and after Lenin died the Soviet Union would be led by one of the world's most vicious tyrants.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43855831]Tbh, half of those countries ended up in disaster.[/QUOTE] Er, not really, most of them are better off than they would have been staying under the status quo. The french revolution was a bit of a disaster, but it may have been integral and inevitable in history, monarchies needed to be challenged at some point, if it wasn't the french it may have just been somebody else. Revolutions are generally violent and the road afterwards is generally a bit bumpy, it's not particularly indicative of anything.

I am fucking sick of all this 'ukraine is fucked in eu go to russia hurr democracy is piece of shit durr' kind of crap. We're choosing between two evils right now, because if we go to russia, we will be a fucking ukrostan like Tajikistan, where theres only a slight illusion of well-being. On the other side, we're fucked in EU side too, but it will work out in near-time future i suppose. Most of our industry is generally [B][I]FUCKED[/I][/B], i don't know exact year when they were built, but out local oligarch Renat Achkmetov is making some cash with those dirty and polluting factories. I think destroing couple of those old factories and replacing them with a couple of new ones isn't that bad. Generally, we can have a future in EU, but it will be a fucking pain in the ass to repay that fucking loan of 3-to-6 milliard dollars to Russia, huh.

[QUOTE]The french revolution was a bit of a disaster, but it may have been integral and inevitable in history, monarchies needed to be challenged at some point, if it wasn't the french it may have just been somebody else. [/QUOTE] [B][I][U]*Absolute monarchies[/U][/I][/B] [QUOTE]The only ones I see that ended in "disaster", or at least caused as many problems as it solved, was the Russian Revolution and the Xinhai Revolution. China would go on to be in an age of warlords and foreign exploitation, and after Lenin died the Soviet Union would be led by one of the world's most vicious tyrants. [/QUOTE] Every single goddamn latin american revolution was a huge fuck up. Except Brazil....

[QUOTE=Melnek;43848578]Don't worry, all they gotta do is join the good guys, the EU! Then all their problems will be instantly solved using democratic sorcery, corruption will be rooted out overnight and the hryvnia will be the most valued currency ever and New Ukraine will enter a golden age of Western progress.[/QUOTE] Just like Israel! Oh wait..

How about instead of all of us saying what we think should happen to Ukraine , we let the Ukrainian Facepunchers chime in and say what they think is best for their county instead of us?

[QUOTE=VOSK;43869639]How about instead of all of us saying what we think should happen to Ukraine , we let the Ukrainian Facepunchers chime in and say what they think is best for their county instead of us?[/QUOTE] we shouldn't join any of russia's unions and consider 'bout EU, because it has its own shit.