Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Until I figure out how to un-close it, at least.

0 (0%)

So yeah.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: May 01, 2014, 02:06:40 pm

[Guardian G.I.]

Webber, please explain to me how the new Ukrainian government is a junta?

From fascists to a junta, what's next?

It's a rather incorrect term. A junta is a military government - for example the Supreme Council of Armed Forces in Egypt which took power after overthrowing President Morsi is a junta. People in charge of Ukraine are not a junta.
Pro-Russian forces started calling the Maidan government a "junta" for some reason shortly after the overthrow of Yanukovich.

[scrdest]

1) is not only CE for being CE's sake, it's not even the most efficient way to do it, since they are using actual army by now, so it's not like they couldn't just send some troops there
2) ...how would that work? Reverse psychology? 'NOTHING TO SEE HERE, ONLY OUR DAILY MURDERIN''
3) Seeing as there is proof of actual separatists armed with actual weapons actually shooting down an actual helicopter, and I feel like I forgot an actual somewhere, this again looks needlessly convoluted and CE for CE's sake.

1) Erm, you possibly got something wrong. I mean an actual tent camp on the street, you know, to show the protest and such.
2) As I said, things probably went out of control... or I underestimate our Junta.
3) ...And I`m yet to see actual Russian agents captured. Not random people SBU is showing us on a daily basis.

Addendum: BTW, if you have some time, try to apply "chaotic evil" logic to official version of February events. Like "dispelling the croud with snipers", "beating children on streets", "torturing protesters than letting them free alive"...

Oh. You're that guy from the old thread. Ohhh. OOOoohhh.

* scrdest puts on his thread-parachute and activates the bailout functionality.

[webber]

1) is not only CE for being CE's sake, it's not even the most efficient way to do it, since they are using actual army by now, so it's not like they couldn't just send some troops there
2) ...how would that work? Reverse psychology? 'NOTHING TO SEE HERE, ONLY OUR DAILY MURDERIN''
3) Seeing as there is proof of actual separatists armed with actual weapons actually shooting down an actual helicopter, and I feel like I forgot an actual somewhere, this again looks needlessly convoluted and CE for CE's sake.

1) Erm, you possibly got something wrong. I mean an actual tent camp on the street, you know, to show the protest and such.
2) As I said, things probably went out of control... or I underestimate our Junta.
3) ...And I`m yet to see actual Russian agents captured. Not random people SBU is showing us on a daily basis.

1) Still, why would they do that. They have gas and army and watercannons and all dem other methods to clear it up. Having the people do it only reinforces the idea that Eastern Ukraine is a lawless area out of control, waiting for a "Peace" mission stepping in.
2) Well, actually the fire might have caused less backlash than having the camp beat up by pro-Ukrainians. I mean, now it's a tragedy with no clear perpetrator (both sides were using molotovs)
3) I've yet to see actual evidence that the government is behind this. I mean, you only "evidence" is that the police chief talked to someone involved with Maidan.

1) Regular army cannot be used versus protesters, it violates the ton of conventions. And in the middle of Odessa this cannot be concealed. Also it`s "cannon agaist a sparrow".
2) No evidence of pro-Russian people with molotovs.
3) Police is subordinated to government. Odessa governor stated in his FB that "any actions versus terrorists are considered legal". Tymoshenko thanked ultras for "defending Odessa", etc.

Webber, please explain to me how the new Ukrainian government is a junta?
From fascists to a junta, what's next?

Because they are close to actual junta - took the power by force, ruled by the council of leaders, each with own manpower, and such.

[vagel7]

Webber, your description even if it is as true as it can be, still does not make it a junta. If that is a junta then pretty much every democracy started out as a junta and maybe still is

You should learn what big words mean before using them, didn't your mother teach you that?

[webber]

Webber, your description even if it is as true as it can be, still does not make it a junta. If that is a junta then pretty much every democracy started out as a junta and maybe still is

You should learn what big words mean before using them, didn't your mother teach you that?

...Also this nickname stuck because
1) it`s shorter than any other variant to describe the current government without the using word "government", which would imply legality
2) you can only change one letter to get a Russian swear word which also describes the current "government" pretty well.

[ivze]

Calm down, get a cup of coffee.
A big document from Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/ns-dgpch.nsf/03c344d01162d351442579510044415b/38fa8597760acc2144257ccf002beeb8/%24FILE/ATTLUY3T.pdf/White_book.pdf

[smjjames]

Webber, your description even if it is as true as it can be, still does not make it a junta. If that is a junta then pretty much every democracy started out as a junta and maybe still is

You should learn what big words mean before using them, didn't your mother teach you that?

...Also this nickname stuck because
1) it`s shorter than any other variant to describe the current government without the using word "government", which would imply legality
2) you can only change one letter to get a Russian swear word which also describes the current "government" pretty well.

1. It's not being used correctly. I request that you show proof that the military had any involvement.
2. I guess that's a better explanation than using a term which isn't even bring used correctly.

[10ebbor10]

1) Regular army cannot be used versus protesters, it violates the ton of conventions. And in the middle of Odessa this cannot be concealed. Also it`s "cannon agaist a sparrow".
2) No evidence of pro-Russian people with molotovs.
3) Police is subordinated to government. Odessa governor stated in his FB that "any actions versus terrorists are considered legal". Tymoshenko thanked ultras for "defending Odessa", etc.

1) Sure it can. They just need to call them terrorists or Russian agent and let the tanks move out. Or you know, considering you seem to be saying that all the pro-Russians protestors were peace loving unarmed people, they can just send in the police with a polite note. I mean, unarmed protestors can not resists a police force, or an ultra force for that matter. You can't say that the protestors were both unarmed and managed to defend themselves well enough that they had to use fire.

2) A fire started on the third floor, need a really good aim to throw up there. Anyway, I saw pictures of pro-Russians with Molotov's posted in this thread, and the official position is that part of the fire was accidentally started by the pro-Russian using Molotov's.

3) Does not prove involvement. Merely acknowledgment of their actions. (Which is bad enough, I suppose.)

Webber, your description even if it is as true as it can be, still does not make it a junta. If that is a junta then pretty much every democracy started out as a junta and maybe still is

You should learn what big words mean before using them, didn't your mother teach you that?

...Also this nickname stuck because
1) it`s shorter than any other variant to describe the current government without the using word "government", which would imply legality
2) you can only change one letter to get a Russian swear word which also describes the current "government" pretty well.

Kiev is one letter shorter, implies no legitimacy at all, is more informative, and swear words are bad things.

Also, none of those is a good argument. I mean, you might start calling them Nazis for the same reasons.

[Sergarr]

stop fueling the fire tornado, or it will consume us all

you can still prevent this from happening

[nenjin]

Calm down, get a cup of coffee.
A big document from Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/ns-dgpch.nsf/03c344d01162d351442579510044415b/38fa8597760acc2144257ccf002beeb8/%24FILE/ATTLUY3T.pdf/White_book.pdf

I'd like to congratulate you on being the poster who no one knows what they're talking about, why or to whom.

[smjjames]

stop fueling the fire tornado, or it will consume us all

you can still prevent this from happening

I'm trying to keep it to a bit heated but non-flamey level.

Webber, you told us your view of what happened with the fire, how about you tell us what sparked the whole riot and your explanation of the polices behavior.

Edit: dang autocorrect

[webber]

1) Regular army cannot be used versus protesters, it violates the ton of conventions. And in the middle of Odessa this cannot be concealed. Also it`s "cannon agaist a sparrow".
2) No evidence of pro-Russian people with molotovs.
3) Police is subordinated to government. Odessa governor stated in his FB that "any actions versus terrorists are considered legal". Tymoshenko thanked ultras for "defending Odessa", etc.

1) Sure it can. They just need to call them terrorists or Russian agent and let the tanks move out. Or you know, considering you seem to be saying that all the pro-Russians protestors were peace loving unarmed people, they can just send in the police with a polite note. I mean, unarmed protestors can not resists a police force, or an ultra force for that matter. You can't say that the protestors were both unarmed and managed to defend themselves well enough that they had to use fire.

2) A fire started on the third floor, need a really good aim to throw up there. Anyway, I saw pictures of pro-Russians with Molotov's posted in this thread, and the official position is that part of the fire was accidentally started by the pro-Russian using Molotov's.

3) Does not prove involvement. Merely acknowledgment of their actions. (Which is bad enough, I suppose.)

..

Kiev is one letter shorter, implies no legitimacy at all, is more informative, and swear words are bad things.

Also, none of those is a good argument. I mean, you might start calling them Nazis for the same reasons.

1) Again, it would be military operation in a center of a megapolis. Against like 300 people in tents. What for?

You can't say that the protestors were both unarmed and managed to defend themselves well enough that they had to use fire.
 There was no "defense". There was a massacre.

2) You are using an outdated point of view and probably missed some pieces of evidence I gave earlier. Ultras/Right Sector/red bandages were INSIDE the building too, up to the roof, and could set the fire where they wanted to.

3) Then who? Remnants of Yanukovich loyalists in the police?


It would be kind of strange for me to call them "Kiev" sitting in, erm, Kiev.

Also, why are they not nazis? I mean, like... promoting own nation over others, willing to kill other people for that and actually doing so, supporting the actions of the Nazi Germany... Where is the difference? Am I missing some especial English meaning of "nazi" word or something?

[webber]

Webber, you told us your view of what happened with the fire, how about you tell us what sparked the whole riot and your explanation of the polices behavior.

You mean the whole Maidan protest or Odessa events prior to fire?

[smjjames]

Webber, you told us your view of what happened with the fire, how about you tell us what sparked the whole riot and your explanation of the polices behavior.

You mean the whole Maidan protest or Odessa events prior to fire?

The Odessa events that sparked the riot, with the person shooting into a crowd of amped up soccer fans.

[GlyphGryph]

If they are Nazi's, so are the people in charge of Russia. Either get a definition that means something and stop trying to tar the "other side" with smear tactics, or stop acting like you have some sort of moral high ground and are doing anything other than being a shill.

The Junta thing was bad enough, but to respond to someone using insane hyperbole by agreeing with it does you no favours.

Ultras/Right Sector/red bandages were INSIDE the building too, up to the roof, and could set the fire where they wanted to.

I'd still like to see any evidence at all that these groups were Right Sector or anything close.