Det är känt att judar hatar Putin, även Hasbara-troll på internet, som gör allt för att smutskasta honom och Ryssland. Inget att bry sig om dessa patetiska individer.
Vad har judar med ämnet att göra. Håll dig till ämnet tack. Patetiskt.
Du verkar väldigt naiv. Tror du verkligen att du kan få reda på sanningen om konflikten i Ukraina genom att läsa BBC, New York Times och liknande media? Sådana källor kan vara användbara för att få fram vissa hårda fakta, om man läser mellan raderna och vet vad man letar efter. Det kan också finnas intressanta debattartiklar och läsarkommentarer. Man att köpa deras tillrättalagda verklighetsbeskrivningar rakt av är att dra ner genomsnittsnivån på Flashback.
Den som inte är mentalt handikappad läser varje text med kritisk medvetenhet. Den som är mentalt handikappad tror blint på de mest absurda lögner från exempelvis Kreml eller RT, eller från InfoWars eller random UFO-blog.
Att förneka att New York Times ibland har läsvärda artiklar, eller att BBC News har en ytterst nyttig bevakning av Ukrainakrisen, är att förklara att man är mentalt handikappad, alternativt så ideologiskt fanatisk att det som en sådan person säger måste läsas med klar medvetenhet om denna fanatiska oresonlighet.
__________________
Senast redigerad av KaosnegerMedKlubba 2014-03-08 kl. 12:02.
Putins propaganda och beskrivning av händelserna har haft effekt. USA:s utrikesdepartement har känt sig nödgade att skriva ett fact sheet betitlat "President Putin's Fiction" där man bemöter Putins påstående med fakta. Jag har inte sett att amerikanska UD gjort något liknande tidigare. Intressant att de agerar så. Man tycker ju, eftersom de påstår sig vara så vederhäftiga, att de kunde bemödat sig med att åtminstone länka källor till Putins påståenden.
President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 5, 2014
As Russia spins a false narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine, the world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoyevsky wrote, “The formula ‘two times two equals five’ is not without its attractions.”
Below are 10 of President Vladimir Putin’s recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort.
1. Mr. Putin says: Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is “citizens’ defense groups,” not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.
The Facts: Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea. While these units wear uniforms without insignia, they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by the international media and the Ukrainian military. Moreover, these individuals are armed with weapons not generally available to civilians.
2. Mr. Putin says: Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
The Facts: The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
3. Mr. Putin says: The opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
The Facts: The February 21 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada, or Parliament, would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament. Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption.
4. Mr. Putin says: Ukraine’s government is illegitimate. Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine.
The Facts: On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych “has no political future.” After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government. Ukraine’s new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority. The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people, which will shepherd the country toward democratic elections on May 25th – elections that will allow all Ukrainians to have a voice in the future of their country.
5. Mr. Putin says: There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.
The Facts: To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis. Nor is there evidence of a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia. International organizations on the ground have investigated by talking with Ukrainian border guards, who also refuted these claims. Independent journalists observing the border have also reported no such flood of refugees.
6. Mr. Putin says: Ethnic Russians are under threat.
The Facts: Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat. The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset. President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level. Ethnic Russians and Russian speakers have filed petitions attesting that their communities have not experienced threats. Furthermore, since the new government was established, calm has returned to Kyiv. There has been no surge in crime, no looting, and no retribution against political opponents.
7. Mr. Putin says: Russian bases are under threat.
The Facts: Russian military facilities were and remain secure, and the new Ukrainian government has pledged to abide by all existing international agreements, including those covering Russian bases. It is Ukrainian bases in Crimea that are under threat from Russian military action.
8. Mr. Putin says: There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.
The Facts: Religious leaders in the country and international religious freedom advocates active in Ukraine have said there have been no incidents of attacks on churches. All of Ukraine’s church leaders, including representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have expressed support for the new political leadership, calling for national unity and a period of healing. Jewish groups in southern and eastern Ukraine report that they have not seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.
9. Mr. Putin says: Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea.
The Facts: Ukraine’s interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue. Russian troops, on the other hand, have moved beyond their bases to seize political objectives and infrastructure in Crimea. The government in Kyiv immediately sent the former Chief of Defense to defuse the situation. Petro Poroshenko, the latest government emissary to pursue dialogue in Crimea, was prevented from entering the Crimean Rada.
10. Mr. Putin says: The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.
The Facts: The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine. Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine. Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada. There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite.
... det är en rätt stor skillnad på 60% och 90%.
Hade 90% av Krims befolkning varit etniska Ryssar så hade aldrig Putin invaderat halvön eftersom man troligen hade kunnat vara någorlunda säker på att ett referendum faktiskt hade resulterat i en 'pro-rysk' majoritet.
Med endast 64% etniska Ryssar så är det tvärtom sannolikt att en majoritet av Krims befolkning - i fria val - möjligen hade önskat utökad autonomi men aldrig i h-vete att bli en Rysk provins.
Är regimen i Kiev legitim eller har en statskupp genomförts?
Om det är en statskupp så är Rysslands agerande mer eller mindre förståeligt då även USA skulle agera med militär styrka på ett strategiskt viktigt land där en statskupp genomförts.
Respekt för länders suveränitet kan vi skratta åt med tanke på USA:s tidigare ageranden. Principen som sådan alltså.
Är regimen i Kiev legitim eller har en statskupp genomförts?
Om det är en statskupp så är Rysslands agerande mer eller mindre förståeligt då även USA skulle agera med militär styrka på ett strategiskt viktigt land där en statskupp genomförts.
Respekt för länders suveränitet kan vi skratta åt med tanke på USA:s tidigare ageranden. Principen som sådan alltså.
Vilka USAs tidigare ageranden tänker du på då? Mumla inte, ge exempel...
Och var skulle USA ingripa, Kanada, Mexiko?
Han är uppenbarligen tillhörande något minoritetsfolk i Ryssland, kan det vara som så att Ryssland börjat skicka icke slaviska ryska soldater till Krim då de inte känner samma broderskap med ukrainare som slaviska ryssar gör?
Vilka USAs tidigare ageranden tänker du på då? Mumla inte, ge exempel...
Och var skulle USA ingripa, Kanada, Mexiko?
Sydamerika vore fina exempel på USA´s inblandning, även om länderna skiljer sig åt så har de varit med och destabililerat eller kuppat Chile, Mexico, Argentina, Nicaragua, Guatemala och Belize. Men CIA har egentligen härjat i nästan hela sydamerika.
Är regimen i Kiev legitim eller har en statskupp genomförts?
Om det är en statskupp så är Rysslands agerande mer eller mindre förståeligt då även USA skulle agera med militär styrka på ett strategiskt viktigt land där en statskupp genomförts.
Respekt för länders suveränitet kan vi skratta åt med tanke på USA:s tidigare ageranden. Principen som sådan alltså.
Avsättandet av Janukovytj skedde på ett grundlagsvidrigt sätt. Om man sedan kallar det för en statskupp eller en revolution är väl en smakfråga.
Att som Carl Bildt gjorde i P1 häromdagen påstå att det bara var ett regeringsbyte som skedde enligt landets lagar och regler är dock lögn. Oavsett vad man nu tycker om kuppen eller revolutionen.
Många i den här tråden tycks leva i total okunskap, eller total förnekelse, av det oerhört utbredda och berättigade radikala missnöje med den störtade regimen, och den avsky gentemot den, som fanns i Ukraina, och den vilja att förändra saker till det bättre som existerar hos många vanliga medborgare:
Men snälla många var ju utkommenderade och till och med betalda för att demonstrera och slåss mot före presidenten av krafter stående de tidigare Ukrainska ledarna Tymosjenko och justjenko nära som är de som till största delen bär ansvaret för Ukrainas kaosekonomi. Nu står Tymosjenko nationalisten med fascistvännerna åter i rampljuset trots att de flesta Ukrainare har betydligt mindre förtroende för henne än för Yanukovitj.
Vilka USAs tidigare ageranden tänker du på då? Mumla inte, ge exempel...
Och var skulle USA ingripa, Kanada, Mexiko?
Menar att man inte respekterar länders suveränitet.
Ja, om en militären i Kanada gjorde en militärkupp och införde en diktatur och härjade lite som de ville så tror jag faktiskt att man inte respekterat Kanadas suveränitet.
2001 – On April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals surveillance aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States and the People's Republic of China called the Hainan Island incident.
2001 – War in Afghanistan: The War on Terror begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, U.S. Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and "begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters."[RL30172]
2002 – Yemen: On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.[RL30172]
2002 – Côte d'Ivoire: On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d'Ivoire, U.S. military personnel went into Côte d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouaké.[9]
[RL30172]
2003–2011 – War in Iraq: Operation Iraqi Freedom, March 20, 2003, The United States leads a coalition that includes the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland to invade Iraq with the stated goal being "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States."[RL30172]
2003 – Liberia: Second Liberian Civil War, On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 U.S. Marines into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the U.S. Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.[RL30172]
2004 – Haiti: 2004 Haitian coup d'état occurs, The US first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the U.S. Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, MINUSTAH.[RL30172]
2004 – War on Terrorism: U.S. anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.[11]
2004–present: Drone attacks in Pakistan
2006 – Lebanon, U.S. Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit[citation needed], begins evacuation of U.S. citizens willing to leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.[12][13]
2007 – Somalia: Battle of Ras Kamboni, On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.[14]
2010-11 - War in Iraq: Operation New Dawn, On February 17, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that as of September 1, 2010, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" would be replaced by "Operation New Dawn". This coincides with the reduction of American troops to 50,000.
2011 - Libya: Operation Odyssey Dawn, Coalition forces enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 with bombings of Libyan forces.
2011 - Osama Bin Laden is killed by U.S. military forces in Pakistan as part of Operation Neptune Spear.
2011 - Drone strikes on al-Shabab militants begin in Somalia.[16] This marks the 6th nation in which such strikes have been carried out,[17] including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen[18] and Libya.
2012 - Chad: 50 U.S. troops have deployed to the African country of Chad to help evacuate U.S. citizens and embassy personnel from the neighboring Central African Republic's capital of Bangui in the face of rebel advances toward the city.
2013 - Navy SEALS conducted a raid in Somalia and possibly killed a senior Al-Shabaab official, simultaneously another raid took place in Tripoli, Libya, where Special Forces captured Abu Anas al Libi (also known as Anas al-Libi)[20]
