Ongoing discussion of Ukraine

[213374U]

Hey, you know what. Call this guy and tell him the American Revolutionary War was unconstitutional.

 

You might have noticed that the lawful government was overthrown recently. I bet that wasn't entirely constitutional. Anyways, this reminds me of the "Lawful Stupid" trope. If the President and the Rada wanted to, they could declare a carrot the King of Ukraine. This is only a matter of the legitimacy, as perceived by the public, of the decision. Who will be angry if a referendum is held? It would (I'm being Captain Obvious now) be a problem if Yanukovich had held a referendum on the independence of the Donbass region, because the ethnic Ukrainian factions would be upset. But since they are in charge now, the complaints of unconstitutionality would be greatly mitigated. That said, it's very unlikely they would ever do this, but it would certainly be my advice to them.

No amount of vapid sarcasm, la-la land solutions and irrelevant trivia is going to hide the fact that you, once more, missed the point. Trivia that is, for that matter, incomplete. I suggest you read up on the "right of revolution" and what it meant in the context of the common law interpretation of the Rights of Englishmen, that was used as a justification ad- and most importantly post-hoc in the case of the American Revolution (regardless of its actual merit...). But you are also clearly confused: the Declaration of Independence officially announced an overt revolution that rejected the authority of Britain over formerly British territories—the analogy only remotely works if you intend to draw a parallel between American colonists and East Ukrainians. Or are you suggesting that Yatsenyuk is a rebel and has proclaimed the independence of Ukraine... from Ukraine? Because up until now, the narrative here is that he's the legitimate President of Ukraine. You cannot simultaneously be the lawfully appointed Head of State and a rebel against the same state. This is the biggest problem; the Kiev government insists that it's legitimate while eastern pro-Russian separatists refuse to acknowledge it because of how Yanukovych's ouster was handled. A referendum in East Ukraine would be viewed as illegal by Kiev (as with Crimea) if organized by pro-Russians, and it would be impossible for Kiev to carry out because their authority is challenged there and it would be viewed as a betrayal by their pro-West power base, further increasing instability.

 

Sure, the Rada and the President can try to do whatever, but if what they do isn't perfectly lawful and they don't bother amending the present or drafting a new Constitution with sufficient political and popular consensus, chances are it'll be declared illegal and void down the line, and they will have have solved nothing. You know, exactly how the Ukrainian Constitution has been modified the last two times, resulting in a rollback to the 2004 version, which is one of the main factors of the present crisis.

 

 

 

No, it wouldn't legitimize the Crimean referendum. The state might imprison people which it considers criminals. If you imprison somebody you consider a criminal, you are likely deemed a criminal yourself. In similar fashion, the state might arrange for a referendum to be held. You might not initiate a referendum yourself for the formal independence of your living room.

 

Anyway, this doesn't really matter to any sensible person. I understand nationalistic Ukrainians wants Crimea to be Ukrainian (for some reason...), but really, they are better off this way.

The rule of law rests on one thing alone: the willingness of people at large to abide by the law of the land. If you rule arbitrarily, people are going to lose faith in the rule of law and at some point any such rulings, the very stuff the state is made of, won't be worth the paper they are printed on. This is why even totalitarian regimes attempt to wrap themselves in a mantle of lawfulness and the reason why absolute monarchies fell in Europe. An illusion of order grounded on law must be maintained. Legal exceptions enacted without broad consensus may be a way to "fix" problems by sweeping them under the rug, but the issues are going to resurface twenty years later because you never bothered to address the underlying causes. Attempts to change reality by lawmaking have a tendency to fail, as the current situation illustrates. But hey, all involved are clearly idiots when something with such a simple solution hasn't been fixed yet. I pity them for having to stumble blindly without the light of Rostere's wisdom to mark the way.

 

It's also pretty cute that you feel confident enough to decide who is "sensible" on the basis of agreement with your POWERFUL THINKING theses. What a cozy little endogamous intellectual haven you have built for yourself.

Edited April 27, 2014 by 213374U

[Rostere]

Russia Today:

 

 

http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/%D1%81anada-minister-defense-ufo-959/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK6I8DpR9EA

 

http://youtu.be/iAosF8TrOU0?t=4m58s

 

http://rt.com/shows/larry-king-now/ufo-alien-roswell-621/

 

 

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Nobody's saying Fox News isn't biased (obviously), or that any news source is perfect. But there are degrees of bias. When talking about Ukraine, how often do RT have US/EU/Ukrainian representatives on air to tell their view on the situation? Not often, I can tell you that. Contrast this with AJ's reporting on the I/P conflict where there is always a Jewish Israeli person in every debate, for example. RT is often just sheer crackpotism as shown above.

[Walsingham]

Any people who think Western Media is not biased at all and totally neutral probably never turned on Fox News...

 

There's your proof right there... ???

 

Fox news?

 

FOX NEWS?

 

One of the things I genuinely and rarely love about my country is that even people who read the Daily ****ing Mail is that they have nothing but contempt for Fox News..

 

And the thing is that I believe everyone knows this. You ****.

[obyknven]

Kharkiv occupied by Right Sector now, they begin of campaign of right-wing terror today.

http://youtu.be/xyZnAOPyLgY

 

http://youtu.be/oKdyvaU_-GQ

Right sector invited in East Ukraine by oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. This guy is one of main sponsors of Ukrainian nazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Kolomoyskyi

http://libya360.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/right-sector-transfer-headquarters-to-eastern-ukraine/

http://m.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/04/17/zionists-and-anti-semites-in-ukraine-a-strange-union.html

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I've always been under the impression that FOX News is considered terrible by most of the Western press. I vaguely recall reading a statement from a fellow that worked as a reporter for FOX News that when applying for a job elsewere, having FOX on the resume was a negative.

 

So yeah, I wouldn't use FOX as an example of average Western media.

[Walsingham]

I remember being on a British Army exercise. and weirdly enough we ended up watching Fox News. And there's every bastard there. There's ****s from Newcastle who hate ****s from Sunderland. And ther's ****s from Devon who hate ****s who understand electricity. And ****s from Jersey who hate ****s who aren't from Jersey... but everyone hates Fox. 

[Hassat Hunter]

It's about as propagandic (is that a word) as the Russia outlet given...

 

But hey, I know, all Western Media are awesome, nothing bad amongst them *cough*, Russia Media all evil and government controlled and with an agenda...

 

(And sad as it is, not all Americans think that way or obviously it was long off the air)

Edited April 27, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[Drowsy Emperor]

"or supported the state enforced propaganda lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD a"

 

It's a known fact he did. That was no lie. The lie is the myth he didn't have any. The guy flat out admitted to it.

 

What he used to have were some chemical weapons that were given to him or that he bought from the US and used during the war with Iran. Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of accusing him of having something they sold him in the first place, the fact that he had them at some point doesn't lead to conclusion that he would actually use them against the US. By the time the US attacked Iraq he had nothing.

The lie was twofold: 1) He had and was producing WMD's in significant quantities 2) Those WMD's are a threat to the US and the "free world". 

[Walsingham]

It's about as propagandic (is that a word) as the Russia outlet given...

 

But hey, I know, all Western Media are awesome, nothing bad amongst them *cough*, Russia Media all evil and government controlled and with an agenda...

 

(And sad as it is, not all Americans think that way or obviously it was long off the air)

 

LOL. Again, just curious. Does it feel all warm and snuggly to condemn Western media outlets?

 

I ask, openly, and for the record: what simple, measurable, quality is it that you think the BBC (for example) is bad at, which any Russian media outlet scores higher on?

 

Seriously. One single measure.

 

Years in post?

 

Foreign countries covered?

 

Or is there some mystic Slav quality which makes short tenure, abbreviated horizon workers magically better?

[Malcador]

Think his point is that they are equally untrustworthy.

[Hassat Hunter]

Just going out on the whole "Western media awesome, Russia media horrible" that it's not that black & white as people portray.

[obyknven]

Captured NATO officers in Slaviansk. I lol'd, Ukraine is unlucky country for German military personnel.

http://youtu.be/y8bjXQOowgs

[Zoraptor]

I ask, openly, and for the record: what simple, measurable, quality is it that you think the BBC (for example) is bad at, which any Russian media outlet scores higher on?

It's not a matter of Russian media scoring higher, that's a false comparison because there's no one here saying that Russian media is good. We seem to end up at this point pretty much every time, with a lot of issues. The argument should be that the Beeb is objectively good, not just better than something which you say is dreadful. We've gone through the reasons for why people think western media coverage has been of very poor quality extensively and I cannot be bothered repeating it again, you either agree or disagree at this point- and there have been a distinct lack of RT or equivalent links in the refutation as well.

 

I don't suppose you've any evidence, or should I just trust you?

 

For what, the failure in Iraq or getting worse? I hardly think that the failure in Iraq needs much more information- the press breathlessly reported the mobile labs, the "we know where they are" comments and the rest, did very little to counter them at all, and simply have not learned from the experience as they're doing the same thing. For the Beeb in particular they were utterly cowed by that execrable hatchet job known as the Hutton Report- a report that put maintenance in the Mediterranean region back a year it used so much whitewash- and threats of funding cuts.

 

As for why you should trust me, there's no inherent reason to trust me at all. I don't claim to be an ultimate authority on matters and have extraordinary weight. But at the same time I've provided plenty of sources for the whys and for disputations with those claiming more authority, and not a single one has been RT or an equivalent, indeed I go out of my way to use western sources to rebut western sources precisely because it shortcuts the "OMG RT link, automatic fail" kneejerk reaction- hence mentioning Mr Beardy alleged Russian Special Forces guy being at a wedding in Slovyansk as shown on the BBC itself. I just wish I could find a short circuit for the "BBC/ CNN says something so it's automatically true" kneejerk reaction as well.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Fox News actually covers stuff all the other networks try to ignore/cover up, because they're all in love with Obama and are 99% Democrats. Look up Leland Yee and find out how long it took CNN to cover him, as opposed to Wendy Davis.

[BruceVC]

 

"or supported the state enforced propaganda lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD a"

 

It's a known fact he did. That was no lie. The lie is the myth he didn't have any. The guy flat out admitted to it.

 

What he used to have were some chemical weapons that were given to him or that he bought from the US and used during the war with Iran. Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of accusing him of having something they sold him in the first place, the fact that he had them at some point doesn't lead to conclusion that he would actually use them against the US. By the time the US attacked Iraq he had nothing.

The lie was twofold: 1) He had and was producing WMD's in significant quantities 2) Those WMD's are a threat to the US and the "free world". 

 

 

Volo makes some relevant points

 

The whole justification that Western media lies because of the Iraq invasion just gets tiresome and definitely doesn't represent the reality of the state of the veracity of most events the Western media raises

 

Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. There is NO doubt he had them in the past  and was prepared to use them in past conflicts. The misinformation that most Western countries intelligence services had were the fact that he still had them. Yes the wrong information was given to various governments and this was used as part of the justification for the second invasion of Iraq

 

But this doesn't negate all the subsequent stories around global events that the Western media brings to our attention

 

Zora, Drowsy, Vals and Sarex you guys  really need to stop using the Iraq invasion as a valid reason for why we cannot trust anything the West says. Personally I check multiple sources when it comes to global events and I can corroborate what I say and believe. But I admit I don't use RT as a source of information as I don't trust it in any regards.

Edited April 28, 2014 by BruceVC

[Walsingham]

I'm the first (usually) to say that standards at the BBC are falling. I don't know if it's 24 hour news or what it is. But it is just intellectually lazy to throw up your hands and put them on a par with what passes for news in Russia at the moment. Where do you think 'oby' is getting the whole schtick from?

 

I'm not asking you to believe the BBC all the time. That would be foolish.

 

I'm asking you to stop taking the coordinated misinformation being put out about Russia as if it were remotely credible.

[Hassat Hunter]

But this doesn't negate all the subsequent stories around global events that the Western media brings to our attention

SYRIA USED NERVEGAS ON POPULATION!

 

supertiny long time later;

"Oh wait, nope, the rebels used it. Oh well, not important. Here's a footnote mention. Did we mention Syria's government is super-evil and the rebels are super-good guys?"

 

Sound familiar?

There's no black & white as sometimes being portrayed.

[Zoraptor]

I'm asking you to stop taking the coordinated misinformation being put out about Russia as if it were remotely credible.

 

 

We aren't taking the coordinated misinformation put out about Russia as if it were remotely credible, that is however something the other side of the debate does repeatedly by accepting anything anti Russian as gospel, by default. Like (mistranslated/ misattributed) stories about anti jewish pamphlets in Donetsk- the record of the western media in terms of disinformation promulgation has been dreadfully bad, the record of anti Russians accepting it automatically because it fits preconceptions equally so. The implication that because RT may be worse in the disinformation stakes everything is peachy with western media is, well, intellectually lazy. I don't really care whether NWN OC or Oblivion is objectively the worse game, they're both terrible and everything else is degree.

 

Seriously though, go back a few pages and see how many links to RT there are which doesn't come from oby. Go back further. See how many you can find- not many, if any, to quote the great philosopher Scribe. You're tilting at windmills.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Gorgon]

I think you might be overthinking this. 'Western media' has been made the bogeyman in Russia for so long that  our fellow board members aren't being objective about it anymore. There are lots of things wrong with 'western media', don't get me wrong, but the assumption is that there is something better out there, which is not really supported by the facts. 

[Malcador]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27185085

 

Shot their mayor in the back, hm, these people know how to get politicians out of office it seems.

[Mor]

The implication that because RT may be worse in the disinformation stakes everything is peachy with western media is, well, intellectually lazy.

Its just yet another deflection, shoveled every time we point out the issues of Russia state media in this, redirecting by suggesting that we think that there no issues with western media, that its squeaky clean or whatever. Even though none of the involved ever claimed that, and as far as I recall all argued for using several media outlets to get the whole picture.

 

After that we are back to the same "Russian and western media are the same" - Which is what we want to address here, the fundamental understanding that Russian mass media, being state media plays major role in Russia's coordinated misinformation campaign; that "western media" isn't one entity, so unless in your vocabulary everything western is substitutable with "foreign enemies" let stop with broad generalizations; lastly when most media outlets(not just western) show completely different turn of event than Russian media, it might be prudent todo some of that critical thinking and discuss why.

[Drowsy Emperor]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27185085

 

Shot their mayor in the back, hm, these people know how to get politicians out of office it seems.

 

This doesn't really mean anything, there were probably a hundred people who had reason to do this. It could be political but it doesn't have to be.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

"or supported the state enforced propaganda lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD a"

 

It's a known fact he did. That was no lie. The lie is the myth he didn't have any. The guy flat out admitted to it.

 

What he used to have were some chemical weapons that were given to him or that he bought from the US and used during the war with Iran. Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of accusing him of having something they sold him in the first place, the fact that he had them at some point doesn't lead to conclusion that he would actually use them against the US. By the time the US attacked Iraq he had nothing.

The lie was twofold: 1) He had and was producing WMD's in significant quantities 2) Those WMD's are a threat to the US and the "free world". 

 

 

Volo makes some relevant points

 

The whole justification that Western media lies because of the Iraq invasion just gets tiresome and definitely doesn't represent the reality of the state of the veracity of most events the Western media raises

 

Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. There is NO doubt he had them in the past  and was prepared to use them in past conflicts. The misinformation that most Western countries intelligence services had were the fact that he still had them. Yes the wrong information was given to various governments and this was used as part of the justification for the second invasion of Iraq

 

But this doesn't negate all the subsequent stories around global events that the Western media brings to our attention

 

Zora, Drowsy, Vals and Sarex you guys  really need to stop using the Iraq invasion as a valid reason for why we cannot trust anything the West says. Personally I check multiple sources when it comes to global events and I can corroborate what I say and believe. But I admit I don't use RT as a source of information as I don't trust it in any regards.

 

 

You're in fact glossing over everything I said while whitewashing what happened in Iraq. At least a 100,000 died there for nothing and probably many more. This is the sort of crime that international courts were supposedly built for. Yet no one ever faced a court of law.

 

Of course, the argument that western intelligence agencies had "misinformation" is rubbish, as if such huge institutions base their opinion on what the local grocery keeper says and not the collective knowledge of many people.

 

The WMD's were a lie necessary because there was nothing bombastic that could be attributed to Saddam to get the war going. 

 

The Iraq argument is the perfect argument that western media is in service of the state's foreign policy because its airtight, a lie of such epic proportions that was impossible to hide.

 

There were many such lies. The "Racak massacre" in Kosovo (featuring KLA combatants slain in combat dressed up as civilians), the "Srebrenica genocide" (where the victims of "genocide" rose from the dead to vote in subsequent elections), the "Serbian concentration camps"  in Bosnia. All of these were outright fabrications by the western media.

 

 

Thankfully, not everyone is willing to be a part of it.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[sorophx]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQGRJN4Radk

[HoonDing]