jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (23 posts)

Ukraine – what you’re not being told

  1. sannyasinman profile image61
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    http://rt.com/news/

    You are being lied to by the mainstream media and governments.
    Are you interested in the other side of the story?  You should be. This could be the start of WWIII

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Since its foundation in 2005, RT has been widely accused as being a mouthpiece of the Kremlin."

      "On March 5, 2014, Liz Wahl went off script, during her live segment, and resigned her job while denouncing her employer Russia Today for its allegedly distorted coverage of Russia's intervention in the Crimea. "

    2. Quilligrapher profile image88
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      RT is a news outlet with headquarters in Moscow. It is funded by the federal budget of Russia through the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. RT is owned and operated by the Russian government. It states in its mission statement, “RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint.” [Emphasis added for clarity.]
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    3. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      RT aside, MSM, in a big way, is touting the propaganda the White House is spewing.

      I am no fan of Putin's but the Ukrainian upset was directly in response to US and EU meddling. It shouldn't have happened. We should not have instigated and supported an uprising that ousted a duly elected President.

      We cheered on those rebels in January, but today, when a different group of rebels fights against a non-elected government, we cheer on the non-elected government, even to the point of supporting violent measure that killed dozens of protestors.

      Yep, we poked the sleeping Bear.

      Out of complete short-sightedness.

      Reagan is rolling in his grave.

  2. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    The mainstream will never fool me again. They fooled me with Ceaucescu and Serbia but I NEVER believed what they said with September 11 and the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq.

    1. frantisek78 profile image86
      frantisek78posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How were you fooled by coverage concerning Ceausescu??

  3. CHRIS57 profile image60
    CHRIS57posted 3 years ago

    I would not be too ethusiastic about RT. RT is biased same as western media is.
    But certainly you are right that western mainstream media is following political goals. For me it is difficult to understand the objective of the US in this conflict. The US is far away, has almost no economic relationship with Ukraine and little with Russia. So what does the US drive to intervene? Also, what does the EU want with another economic basketcase? Aren´t there enough Greece, Portugal, ... around?
    Isn´t this all about geostrategic expansion of the western block, call it NATO? I see no difference from the objectives of Putins Russia to recollect bits and pieces of the former USSR.
    Meanwhile, why don´t you tune in on Al Jazeera? Or the the English version of China´s CCTV? They are definitely mor unbiased than western, Ukrainian or Russian newsmedia.

  4. sannyasinman profile image61
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    Exactly. As I said, you owe it to yourself to listen to the other side of the story. There are things going on in the Ukraine which the mouthpieces of the US and EU governments (CNN, BBC etc) will never show you.
    RT are interviewing eye witnesses in Odessa who saw US sponsored Right Sector militants set fire to a building with pro-Russia civilians inside. These people were burned alive.
    Western media is trying to blame this on Russia, which is nonsense.

    http://rt.com/news/

    Obama is calling the coup govt in  Kiev "duly elected" while Kiev is calling its own people who disagree with its violent coup govt "terrorists" and ordering its own military to shoot them.  There is much evidence that all of this is driven by the US. Even the NY Times was caught fabricating evidence to support Washington, and was forced to issue retractions.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc5hvKs2MqU#t=351

    All I am saying is that there is another side to the story. As always, inform yourself and then decide what you want to believe . .

    1. Quilligrapher profile image88
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this


      I am always interested in hearing all sides of every issue. However, all claims and accusations must be accompanied by verifiable proof before they can be accepted as facts. 

      Here are the facts as we know them regarding claims in this post:

      Fact: The eye witnesses in Odessa did not produce any evidence that the arsonists were sponsored by the US or that the US ordered the fires to be set.

      Claim: “There are things going on in the Ukraine which the mouthpieces of the US and EU governments (CNN, BBC etc) will never show you.”

      Fact: There are things going on in the Ukraine and elsewhere that the mouthpieces of the Russian, US and EU governments (RT, Novosti, CNN, BBC etc) will never fully report. There is no evidence any of them can be relied upon for the total truth and I believe most readers in this forum know this.

      Claim: “There is much evidence that all of this is driven by the US.”

      Fact: A government favoring closer ties to the EU replaced a Ukraine government favoring closer ties to the Russian Federation. Not surprising, it is in the best interest of the United States, as well as the EU, to support the new government in Kiev. On the other hand, it is in the best interest of the Russian Federation to support the ousted government.

      Who is doing the driving is clearly an unknown to all discerning civilian observers. Although your unwavering support for the Russian cause is your prerogative, your claims and accusations still require verifiable evidence.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. HowardBThiname profile image89
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Quill, you say:

        "Who is doing the driving is clearly an unknown to all discerning civilian observers. Although your unwavering support for the Russian cause is your prerogative, your claims and accusations still require verifiable evidence."

        Thanks to the internet - this is not as unknown as you suggest. Discerning citizens can find blow-by-blow reports. It's the citizens who don't care to discern who become entangled in the rhetoric. Consider Assist. Sec. Victoria Nuland's phone conversation during the Olympics where she commented ""f" the EU" and she went on to say who would replace the ousted President. While that doesn't tell us the extent to which the US was involved in the ouster - it tells us that the US was involved.

        Consider further that Nuland is married to Kagan, one of the founders of the PNAC and then pay attention to what Nuland is promoting in comparison to what the PNAC promoted. It's virtually the same. No, I'm not going to hunt down dozens of references, if you're interested you'll research on your own. If you're not - that too is fine.

        The Obama Administration has been promoting the overthrow of any government that is not a democracy, then it came to Ukraine and went further - promoting the ouster of a duly-elected President.

        Putin is no hero - but neither is Obama. There is no magic bullet in democracy. There is, however, a great danger in trying to force people who are not ready for a democratic government to adopt one. Case in point - Egypt and Libya.

        The only thing this truly shows is that just because certain politicians win popularity contests in no way supports the idea that they are wise or capable of making decisions that benefit humanity.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image88
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hello, Howard. How nice to bump into you here.

          Actually, I have no desire to prove that the statements in your post are supported or not. If your claims and opinions are not important enough to merit citations or some other supporting authority, then why should I or anyone else think they are important enough take seriously? On the other hand, if the effort is too much for you, like you said, that too is fine.

          The originator of a positive assertion carries the burden of proving the claim is valid. {1} Without such support, opinions languish forever, not as facts but simply as unverified claims.   

          Thank you, Howard, for responding to my post. It is always a pleasure for me to share ideas with you.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ … -Proof.htm {See “Shifting the Burden of Proof.")

          1. HowardBThiname profile image89
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Good morning Quill,

            The problem is that on a message board, such as this, where posters share ideas, demanding "proof" often derails a conversation and many posters just fall away.

            I only mentioned the part about Victoria Nuland because virtually everyone who has a TV or access to the net was aware of the comment when it happened. And, I can't imagine anyone (who is interested in this topic) not knowing her link to the PNAC. But, if you don't - this is probably not a conversation I want to have anyway because it would take too much time and effort to bring you up to speed.

            I suppose you'll still demand proof and that's all well and fine, but just be aware that many find that a discouragement to conversation. Typically, if you don't buy into a point - you can challenge it by presenting a counter argument - or you can scroll over.

            Either way works.

      2. sannyasinman profile image61
        sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        More unverifiable “facts” for your consideration . . .   

        I realise that as usual, you will probably shoot the messenger before even trying to ascertain if there is any truth in the message, but as the so called “credible” mainstream media in the west all sing from the same song sheet, we are obliged to go elsewhere to so called "non credible" sources for another side to the story . . .

        http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/04 … in-odessa/

        http://www.infowars.com/washington-inte … as-demise/

        By the way, you seemed uninterested in the “fact” that the MSM (in this case the New York Times) was caught fabricating its “facts” regarding the Ukraine situation, and had to issue a retraction – and not for the first time.   
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc5hvKs2MqU#t=351

        1. Quilligrapher profile image88
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          G’evenin’ Sannyasinman.

          What is missing from both of your latest links is proof. Adding more claims is not supplying proof. The two are not the same.

          As a child, I was convinced that the Tooth Fairy was real. The morning after I placed my tooth under my pillow, I found a quarter, tangible “proof” that the “claim” was true.

          Today, I am convinced that the Tooth Fairy “claim” and the “proof” were both false. What has change? I now know how to recognize what constitutes “proof.”  If you want to have your assertions accepted as facts, supply the same caliber of proof you would demand from me if I claimed the Tooth Fairy was real.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. sannyasinman profile image61
            sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Be honest, you don’t really want proof from me. You want evidence that supports your already deeply entrenched pro-establishment viewpoint.
            When irrefutable evidence has been provided, you ignore it and instead focus on any other hole in the argument to exploit and discredit.
            Proof of this? In your reply you mention "both" my links when in fact there are 3 links. The 3rd, which you conveniently ignore because it conflicts with your view, provides the proof that the NY Times fabricated evidence to support a Russian presence in Ukraine, which was untrue, and when caught out later on, was forced to issue a retraction.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc5hvKs2MqU#t=351

            You believed in tooth fairies, but don’t anymore? Then let me ask you a question.
            Is it more likely that tooth fairies exist or that the 911 official story is true?
            .
            If you want to really sharpen your "proof teeth", go and examine the “proof” in the official 911 fairy story. You will have a field day!

            1. Quilligrapher profile image88
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sannyasinman,

              I was totally in agreement with you up until “supported by who?” followed almost immediately by “Why?”

              John Brennan was in Kiev four weeks ago according to a White House statement. Did you notice how you followed that with “Why?” Unanswered questions are typical from conspiracy theorists because they normally do not have any answers. You DO NOT know why he was there and you wish to imply with a question mark that you do when actually you don’t. I do not know why he was there so don’t feel badly. If you would like some stimulating speculation about why he was there read Forbes. {1} However, they do not know why he was there either!

              You seem willing to rely on RT.com, a Russian news outlet, as an infallible source. The link you provided leads to an article written by a guest journalist. His opinions about what is going on in Ukraine are only his opinions. He is not even a government official who has access to meaningful knowledge. All that you have is more claims and no proof.

              Read more about CIA secrecy before you believe RIA Novosti, the Moscow Times, the Voice of Russia, or an unknown source “close to Ukraine’s security agencies” all know the details regarding the CIA director’s activities in Kiev in mid-April.

              Ron Paul is a diehard Libertarian and a devout isolationist. Nuff said!

              Then you wrote:
              “You believed in tooth fairies, but don’t anymore? Then let me ask you a question.
              Is it more likely that tooth fairies exist or that the 911 official story is true?
              If you want to really sharpen your "proof teeth", go and examine the “proof” in the official 911 fairy story.”


              Thank you for suggesting I examine the official 9/11 story. I have already been there and done that! It should occur to you by now that most of your posts are unsupported accusations. When you bring up 9/11 fairy stories, I rest my case.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} 
              http://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan … has-begun/

              1. sannyasinman profile image61
                sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Stands back aghast!
                You have examined the official story on 911 and you believe it?
                Then you really do still believe in tooth fairies! It's OK. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to, even that Santa Claus exists, tooth fairies exist, and that the official 911 story is true!.
                Sweet dreams!

            2. HowardBThiname profile image89
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The problem, Sanny, and it's not so much that I have a problem with Quill, he seems quite nice, is that he goes about his conversations in a non-scientific method way.

              As you mentioned, he appears to already been inundated in a mindset and he goes about selectively gathering "facts" to support that mindset.

              The Scientific Method, on the other hand, gathers ALL the facts in evidence and then forms a theory based on that.

              What Quill does is common but it can be frustrating. That's why he insists on others providing links. He then visits those links and searches for tiny discrepancies and comes back to post those as his evidence that the other's theory is wrong. It's a message board technique that focuses on side-tracking as opposed to seeing a big picture.

              But - he's a nice guy and in this world, that counts for much.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image88
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Howard,
                Really! Do you have verifiable proof to support this claim?
                tongue
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              2. Quilligrapher profile image88
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Howard,
                I prefer to address my comments directly to you rather than to another poster. 

                I consider you a colleague and a respected wordsmith who is a valuable contributor to this platform. You are intelligent, tuned into current events and not overly partisan. To your credit, I do not think I have ever seen you stoop to irrationally charged terms akin to “wingnut” or “lefties.” I thank you for your critique of my forum posts and I will return the favor in the same spirit.

                This forum does not discuss scientific theories. To claim that the scientific method should be applied here is ludicrous mostly because this method requires that claims are accompanied by proof and you do not follow the scientific method yourself.

                Rather, the discourse in these threads centers on personal opinions and intangible conclusions. The conversation seldom involves absolutes. The intellectual objective is NOT to arrive at a valid scientific conclusion by following the Scientific Method but to provide good justification to a claim, which will stand up to criticism and justify a favorable reception.

                Jurors do not use the scientific method to make decisions based on the evidence presented to them in court. They rely on abductive reasoning, i.e. making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation. {2}

                I try to follow a process that includes six interrelated components for presenting personal non-scientific conclusions for discussion:
                1. A claim that represents conclusions whose merit must be established.
                2. Evidence (facts and/or data) that represent a supporting foundation for the claim.
                3. A statement connecting the data to the claim.
                4. Verifiable backing designed to certify the statement expressed in 3. The backing must be introduced when the statement itself is not convincing enough to the readers.
                5. Rebuttal statements to establish the limits to be applied to the original claim.
                6. Qualifiers, words, or phrases that express the speaker's degree of certainty about the claim. Such words or phrases include "possible," "probably," "impossible," "certainly," "presumably," "as far as the evidence goes," or "necessarily." Obviously, “definitely” conveys a greater degree of force than “presumably." In as much as the bulk of this explanation is NOT original material and it is NOT enclosed in quotation marks, I am obligated to give credit where credit is due. {1}

                The first three components are essential when advocating a position on any issue. You even credit my approach as both “common” and consistent regarding these requirements. “He [Quilligrapher] appears to already been inundated in a mindset and he goes about selectively gathering "facts" to support that mindset.” Sounds like items 1 and 2 to me. LOL Items 4, 5 and 6 are not always necessary.

                Many posters here resist when pressed to provide evidence to support assertions (item 2) because it forces them to test their conclusions in the real world with real supporting authority and facts. Too many prefer to express their opinions in a way that implies they are indisputable and anyone who disagrees is lacking. In particular, I encourage finding discrepancies in supplied supporting links as a valid method to determine if the data provided is flawed or, perhaps, not totally applicable. This is called a rebuttal and it is an important component in a discussion when the discrepancy challenges the central claim. It certainly should not be a ploy to side-track discussion. It is the best way to point out how to modify the original claim so it is not contradicted or weakened by the supporting data.

                Howard, I appreciate your well articulated posts. They contain opinions worthy of our attention. Those opinions, however, are not sacrosanct but they are important enough to warrant supporting facts and data capable of validation.

                I hope your Mother’s Day has been filled with cheer.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Toulmin.pdf
                {2} https://butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsh … oning.html

                1. GA Anderson profile image86
                  GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  OMG! (I know I am too old to love that phrase, but I do), I also know I am two weeks behind this response, but Damn! Excellence does not have a sell-by date, and that was a damn excellent example of the Quill-effect.

                  Someday... someday if I study hard, someday...

                  GA

      3. sannyasinman profile image61
        sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You say "A government favoring closer ties to the EU replaced a Ukraine government favoring closer ties to the Russian Federation". How did this happen? It was a violent coup, carried out by Right Sector extremists - supported by who? You know that the CIA director was in Ukriane recently. Why?
        http://rt.com/op-edge/156400-kiev-fight … s-ukraine/

        CIA orchestrating the violence in Eastern Ukraine
        http://www.infowars.com/activists-in-ea … th-squads/

        Obama now calls this illegal coup government in Kiev "duly elected", and the perfectly legal democratic referendum, which returned Crimea to Russia at the will of the people "illegal" and that Russia "annexed" Ukraine.
        Black is white
        Up is down
        1 +1 =3
        Do you get the picture?

        Ron Paul: Western powers fomenting Ukrainian conflict, US should ‘stay out’
        http://rt.com/usa/156512-ron-paul-ukraine-war/

        In eastern Ukraine at the moment, it is not Russians occupying Govt buildings and standing unarmed in front of tanks from Kiev. It is the local people who want nothing to do with the violent fascist govt which has taken over their country. Kiev has ordered its own army to shoot and kill unarmed civilians . 
        http://rt.com/news/157884-shooting-mari … n-ukraine/

        And by the way, I am not at all "pro-Russian" I am "pro-truth" and "anti lies and manipulation", in all and any of its forms.

  5. sannyasinman profile image61
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    More of what you're not being told about the situation in Ukraine . .

    Perhaps this is why the CIA director was in Kiev recently?

    http://rt.com/news/158212-academi-black … -military/
    http://www.infowars.com/cia-fbi-and-now … n-ukraine/

    http://www.infowars.com/activists-in-ea … th-squads/

    and the other side of what happened at the recent referendum in eastern Ukraine . . .
    http://rt.com/news/158276-referendum-re … t-ukraine/

    What do you believe?

 
working