The Ukraine conflict

recovering conservative · Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:31 am

LarsMac;1460759 wrote: Right. That is why we had such exemplary control over Chavez.
You forgot already about the CIA-organized military coup against Chavez already? It was early in Dubya's first term...and all indications afterwards led to the conclusion that the planning and organizing for the coup (which included fomenting a race war between the majority native population and mixed-race mestizos) began during the Clinton Administration.

Much as the coup against the democratically-elected Zalaya Government in Honduras launched early in Obama's first term, there is a clear pattern of behaviour where the Deep State launches a provocative foreign action (like a military coup) early in the new president's career in the White House. They are either testing his nerve or wanting to find out which side he is on. In both GW Bush and Obama, they could confidently be assured that they had hollow presidents who would back down if and when confronted.

Worth noting, that the last time a president deliberately faced down the deep state apparatchiks in the White House and the Pentagon, he ended up with a bullet in his head....a little more than 50 years ago...might just be coincidence of course!

BTW, it's in Georgia, not Florida.
Thanks for the clarification, but it hardly changes the fact that the U.S. has spent more than 100 years cultivating their control over North and South America, in some sort of grandiose version of Manifest Destiny that grew beyond feeling entitled to expand their territories westward.

Many casual observers of history consider the creation of military and commercial empire after WWII (supposedly justified by the Cold War) as the pivotal point where America turned from a republic into an empire. But, just as Rome's transition from republic to empire was not a flip of the switch when General Julius Caesar declared himself emperor of Rome, the American Empire began adopting these qualities of imperial chauvinism and entitlement way back when they began that ethnic cleansing of Indian territories and claiming Mexican territories.

The trappings of empire have become more overt after WWII, and since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the collapse of the so called "Peace Dividend", America is unmasked as an avaricious exploiter of any territories and resources it desires! This may not jibe with the comfortable flag-waving patriotic myths that have become even more desperate and cloying since 9-11, but the truth is rarely as comforting to the believer as the myth is!

recovering conservative · Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:48 am

While things may have cooled down slightly in Israel's war on Gaza, my RT-America news feed informs me that another 20 civilians have been killed and 80 injured in Lugansk Region...the scene of the most intense fighting in recent days. This is the other war that never makes western MSM unless a jetliner gets shot down.....when it first happened, many clueless comments coming in to some of the news feeds I checked weren't even aware that there was an ongoing war there! That's how poorly both commercial and so called 'public media' informs the public here.

I don't want to open up the debate over who shot down the plane (it's course was diverted through a conflict zone after all), but, since UN agencies (I forget the letters at the moment) and Human Rights Watch, have declared unguided, indiscriminate shelling and missile attacks on civilian population centers to be a war crime, does this make the U.S. Government and especially this mediocre president trying desperately to protect his 'legacy' war criminals by proxy?

Obama and Kerry get up before the cameras and declare Putin may be guilty of a war crime in the downed jetliner case if he allowed the rebels to get sophisticated ground-to-air missiles, so what about Obama? He has kept on supplying the Kiev coup regime after the Odessa Massacre (some of us haven't forgotten), and the transition to an air war in the east. Some military observers believe that the pull back of Ukraine troops in many fire zones and increase in bombing and artillery are a strong indication that the Kiev Regime does not have confidence in the abilities and/or resolve of their troops to...well, do what the Israelis are doing in Gaza! Still...it's a war crime nevertheless!

Now, what I would like to know is if the World Court in the Hague, or some UN agency has the guts to charge a sitting U.S. president with war crimes! That would be quite a legacy for Obama - the first president in history to win a Nobel Prize and be indicted with war crimes while in office!

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:55 am

recovering conservative;1460773 wrote: yada, yada, ..., but the truth is rarely as comforting to the believer as the myth is!

Truth.

recovering conservative · Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:07 am

LarsMac;1460776 wrote: Truth.

It's not like I was expecting you to consider the way America appears to the outsider...I hasten to add that once again...now that we have a Conservative Government here in Canada that marches in lock step with U.S. foreign policy and economic policy objectives, I am talking about Canada also when I refer to the American Empire...since corporations headquartered here take full advantage of what's provided through U.S. military and economic policies. I am neither a patriotic American nor a patriotic Canadian!

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:52 am

LarsMac;1460769 wrote: I simply picked the top three stories from the BBC main page.

According to your Snoopy, they must all be false.

I am asking you, then, for edification.

I do not really believe you are taking this approach.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm

High Threshold;1460788 wrote: I do not really believe you are taking this approach.

Why not?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:18 pm

recovering conservative;1460779 wrote: It's not like I was expecting you to consider the way America appears to the outsider...I hasten to add that once again...now that we have a Conservative Government here in Canada that marches in lock step with U.S. foreign policy and economic policy objectives, I am talking about Canada also when I refer to the American Empire...since corporations headquartered here take full advantage of what's provided through U.S. military and economic policies. I am neither a patriotic American nor a patriotic Canadian!

I have friends all over the world. I am aware of how we often appear to outsiders. I am even aware of how we appear to insiders.

The geo-political boundaries are fading fast, really, as the corporations are truly becoming the de facto rulers of the developed nations.

Look at the fight here in the US over the new Keystone Pipeline, whose sole purpose will be to allow Canadian companies to push their shale oil through our land to sell to the global market.

We the people have out and out rejected the thing, and yet somehow it keeps getting pushed on as the "patriotic Americans" drink the kool-aid and claim it is "the right thing for America"

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:46 pm

LarsMac;1460817 wrote: Why not?

I assumed your “Honest Abe misquote was you just being playful – shaking the cherry tree to see if any axes fall to the ground. I now realize that you think I am shallow and stupid. Thanks a lot.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:48 am

High Threshold;1460832 wrote: I assumed your “Honest Abe misquote was you just being playful – shaking the cherry tree to see if any axes fall to the ground. I now realize that you think I am shallow and stupid. Thanks a lot.

Sorry, but shallow and stupid, are not words I would ever use to describe you. I apologize if I have given you that impression.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:40 pm

LarsMac;1460756 wrote: And to what untruths do you refer?

Let's take the BBC news this morning.

so there are not 1000 deaths in Gaza? How many then? How is that untrue?

The US is not evacuating its Embassy staff from Libya?

There is no Ebola in Nigeria?

Please. Tell me what I can believe.

Do you (you, personally) think that HEADLINES stand for the WHOLE TRUTH of any given event? You clearly believe that I (me, personally) should think so. What about the article within?

I'm not well-read on the examples you give so let's use one that we all ought to be familiar with.

FACT 1: Escalating violence in Irak.

MEDIA 1: “Escalating violence in Irak THE HEADLINE – 100% TRUTH.

FACT 2: Escalating violence in Irak due to CIA trained death-squads encouraging ethnic classes.

MEDIA 2: "Escalating violence in Irak due to historical ethnic differences." – 50% TRUTH

FACT 3: Escalating violence in Irak due to CIA trained death-squads encouraging ethnic classes and the failure of the U.S. to introduce democratic principles.

MEDIA 3: "Escalating violence in Irak due to historical ethnic differences despite U.S. instilled democracy." – 33% TRUTH.

FACT 4: Escalating violence in Irak due to CIA trained death-squads encouraging ethnic classes and the failure of the U.S. to introduce democratic principles. What one could expect as a consequence of an invasion based upon a series of lies and fabricated motivation of WMD's.

MEDIA 4: "Escalating violence in Irak due to historical ethnic differences despite U.S. instilled democracy. An unexpected result of U.S. earnest endeavours to clean up Irak for the benefit of the Iraki population." – 25% TRUTH.

ETC, Etc, etc.

No. If you think I am willing to continue giving examples until I've reached a level of 10% TRUTH (90% UNTRUTH) then you'd be wrong.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:26 am

Well, no, I certainly do not believe "that HEADLINES stand for the WHOLE TRUTH of any given event?"

Nor do I believe that you personally believe them.

See your original comment from this perspective, clears it up very well.

I quite see, and agree with, your point.

I enjoyed your inclusion of "CIA-trained Death squads" in every line, though.

And let's take point 2.

FACT 2: Escalating violence in Irak due to CIA trained death-squads encouraging ethnic classes.

MEDIA 2: "Escalating violence in Irak due to historical ethnic differences." – 50% TRUTH

So we are to think that the "ethnic differences" in Iraq are purely a concoction of the Media, to cover up some actions by the CIA?

I suggest that anyone who would believe such a thing is completely ignorant of the history of the region and of the differences between the several factions at play there. They did not need the CIA to stir things up. (Of course, perhaps that discussion might be worthy of its own thread)

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:14 am

LarsMac;1460858 wrote:

So we are to think that the "ethnic differences" in Iraq are purely a concoction of the Media, to cover up some actions by the CIA?

I suggest that anyone who would believe such a thing is completely ignorant of the history of the region and of the differences between the several factions at play there. They did not need the CIA to stir things up. (Of course, perhaps that discussion might be worthy of its own thread)

LarsMac;1460858 wrote: “ So we are to think that the "ethnic differences" in Iraq are purely a concoction of the Media ¦

“concoction? How so? You are linking “concoction with “ethnic differences. You are cheating your reader. The concoction is in blaming those ethnic differences for the escalation of violence. It is simply not true. In fact, it is a lie.

LarsMac;1460858 wrote: “ ¦ to cover up some actions by the CIA?

Well, this is where media spins FACT:

Has there been ethnic tension between Sunni and Shia? YES. But the weight is on the words “has been. Should there still be? No. Could it have been stopped at the root of the contention? Quite likely. UN plans were already bearing fruit from “square one ¦. but the U.S. ordered the inspection team out of Irak in order to attack, thus putting everything achieved by the UN to zero, if not minus. So the U.S. did nothing to put Irak on its feet. Nothing to improve Democratic principles. And, much more to the point, the CIA trained death squads to escalate the slaughter of ethnic population. THERE is the culprit. Not “history of the region, as you say.

So read both my statement and your question of concoction again. You are cheating. You have introduced the term concoction – not me. Nor did I employ anything resembling it. But yes! The media, in this case, does plant a straight forward “lie by circumnavigating truth of the matter. That is how the media puts out such a high percentage of UNTRUTH, which is at the centre of this dialogue of ours.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:06 pm

High Threshold;1460861 wrote: “concoction? How so? You are linking “concoction with “ethnic differences. You are cheating your reader. The concoction is in blaming those ethnic differences for the escalation of violence. It is simply not true. In fact, it is a lie.

Well, this is where media spins FACT:

Has there been ethnic tension between Sunni and Shia? YES. But the weight is on the words “has been. Should there still be? No. Could it have been stopped at the root of the contention? Quite likely. UN plans were already bearing fruit from “square one ¦. but the U.S. ordered the inspection team out of Irak in order to attack, thus putting everything achieved by the UN to zero, if not minus. So the U.S. did nothing to put Irak on its feet. Nothing to improve Democratic principles. And, much more to the point, the CIA trained death squads to escalate the slaughter of ethnic population. THERE is the culprit. Not “history of the region, as you say.

So read both my statement and your question of concoction again. You are cheating. You have introduced the term concoction – not me. Nor did I employ anything resembling it. But yes! The media, in this case, does plant a straight forward “lie by circumnavigating truth of the matter. That is how the media puts out such a high percentage of UNTRUTH, which is at the centre of this dialogue of ours.

So, maybe I am reading too much into this, but it seems that what is being said here is that all of the violence in Iraq of late has nothing to do with the supposed philosophic differences between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim sects, but is being perpetrated on the peace-loving Iraqi people by CIA-trained death squads whose sole purpose in life is to form some new US sponsored Islamic State?

Wow. What a remarkably diabolical plan. We are going to take over Islam!!!

Obama will be the new Caliph!

recovering conservative · Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:25 pm

LarsMac;1460877 wrote: So, maybe I am reading too much into this, but it seems that what is being said here is that all of the violence in Iraq of late has nothing to do with the supposed philosophic differences between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim sects, but is being perpetrated on the peace-loving Iraqi people by CIA-trained death squads whose sole purpose in life is to form some new US sponsored Islamic State?

Wow. What a remarkably diabolical plan. We are going to take over Islam!!!

Obama will be the new Caliph!

Go back to the Sykes-Picot Agreement for a starting point to modern troubles in the Middle East - especially Iraq and Syria! This agreement between England and France which divided up the former Ottoman Empire into English and French colonies, created the modern boundary lines of nation-states that never existed before. The colonial strategies applied were the same as in Africa and the rest of the world - set boundaries that ensure divided populations along racial, sectarian or tribal lines. The last thing they wanted was a colony that potentially had a united opposition! After independence, the inheritors of these former colonies, shared that same interest in maintaining internal divisions to maximize their control. So, in Iraq, the last dictator - Saddam Hussein, was infamous for playing off the threat of Shia takeover to keep Sunni leaders in line.

With the overthrow of Saddam and the abolition of the Republican Guard and civil administration, the American occupiers created a vacuum, and then were baffled that their plan of exporting cheap and easy oil supplies went up in flames!

So, obviously there have been tensions between Sunnis and Shias ever since the death of Muhammed and the arguments over succession, but those divisions have rarely been the major issue on the minds of most Muslims over the centuries. Prior to the occupation debacle, Baghdad had mosques that housed Sunni and Shia congregations and there were many intermarriages between Sunnis and Shias. The U.S. Occupation Administration was the one that decided to divide up the population along sectarian lines, and those sectarian divisions are deeper now than they have been at any time in previous history.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:32 pm

recovering conservative;1460882 wrote: Go back to the Sykes-Picot Agreement for a starting point to modern troubles in the Middle East - especially Iraq and Syria! This agreement between England and France which divided up the former Ottoman Empire into English and French colonies, created the modern boundary lines of nation-states that never existed before. The colonial strategies applied were the same as in Africa and the rest of the world - set boundaries that ensure divided populations along racial, sectarian or tribal lines. The last thing they wanted was a colony that potentially had a united opposition! After independence, the inheritors of these former colonies, shared that same interest in maintaining internal divisions to maximize their control. So, in Iraq, the last dictator - Saddam Hussein, was infamous for playing off the threat of Shia takeover to keep Sunni leaders in line.

With the overthrow of Saddam and the abolition of the Republican Guard and civil administration, the American occupiers created a vacuum, and then were baffled that their plan of exporting cheap and easy oil supplies went up in flames!

So, obviously there have been tensions between Sunnis and Shias ever since the death of Muhammed and the arguments over succession, but those divisions have rarely been the major issue on the minds of most Muslims over the centuries. Prior to the occupation debacle, Baghdad had mosques that housed Sunni and Shia congregations and there were many intermarriages between Sunnis and Shias. The U.S. Occupation Administration was the one that decided to divide up the population along sectarian lines, and those sectarian divisions are deeper now than they have been at any time in previous history.

Did you read the exchange that lead up to that post, before responding to it?

Just curious.

And to your post,

The Sunni-Shi'i division is much bigger than Iraq, and far older and more complicated than you seem to understand.

You forget the rebellion that followed Daddy Bush's "liberation of Kuwait". You ignore the sectarian violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or in Syria and Iraq long before Saddam seized the Ba'ath Party in Iraq with the help of British and American Intelligence. You also ignore all of the goings on of the Saudi government to keep things stirred up in the other Islamic countries around the region.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:09 pm

LarsMac;1460877 wrote: So, maybe I am reading too much into this ....

Could be, yes.

LarsMac;1460877 wrote: .... but it seems that what is being said here is that all of the violence in Iraq of late has nothing to do with the supposed philosophic differences between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim sects, but is being perpetrated on the peace-loving Iraqi people by CIA-trained death squads whose sole purpose in life is to form some new US sponsored Islamic State?

Wow. What a remarkably diabolical plan. We are going to take over Islam!!!

Obama will be the new Caliph!

I can now answer your first question: No, you are not "READING too much into this". You are CREATING something that isn't there.

Truly preposterous. Rather than apply your intuition to understanding the difference between blaming the actual source of a problem - as opposed to a scape goat - you've decided to ignore all of the signs, advice and facts (most importantly) ¦....... and hang your hat on the hoax. That is what I, myself, have coined “voluntary-selective ignorance. I mean, I've given you all that you need to make a prudent choice but you've decided to pay allegiance to the smoke screen, and even support it with your own personal contribution of a bluff and absurd resent. Very nice. :yh_cow

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:34 pm

recovering conservative;1460882 wrote: ..... Prior to the occupation debacle, Baghdad had mosques that housed Sunni and Shia congregations and there were many intermarriages between Sunnis and Shias. The U.S. Occupation Administration was the one that decided to divide up the population along sectarian lines, and those sectarian divisions are deeper now than they have been at any time in previous history.

That ought to stifle the sheeple once and for all ....... but I'm sure that it won't.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:00 am

High Threshold;1460903 wrote: Could be, yes.

I can now answer your first question: No, you are not "READING too much into this". You are CREATING something that isn't there.

Truly preposterous. Rather than apply your intuition to understanding the difference between blaming the actual source of a problem - as opposed to a scape goat - you've decided to ignore all of the signs, advice and facts (most importantly) ¦....... and hang your hat on the hoax. That is what I, myself, have coined “voluntary-selective ignorance. I mean, I've given you all that you need to make a prudent choice but you've decided to pay allegiance to the smoke screen, and even support it with your own personal contribution of a bluff and absurd resent. Very nice. :yh_cow

Now it is you who would call me dense and ignorant?

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:22 am

It actually is not so far-fetched to draw such a fantastic conclusion from the ridiculous claims being made in previous posts.

To attribute all of the sectarian difficulties to "CIA-trained Death squads" shows a complete ignorance of the history of the entire region and of Islam.

I really see no point in continuing this "discussion"

Thanks for playing.

Have a nice day.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:51 am

LarsMac;1460923 wrote: To attribute all of the sectarian difficulties to "CIA-trained Death squads" shows a complete ignorance of the history of the entire region and of Islam.

"Difficulties"? Is that what I said? It is the same sort of ABSURD conclusions and statements that lie at both the most fundamental point of the subject - and this very discussion.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:55 am

High Threshold;1460924 wrote: "Difficulties"? Is that what I said? It is the same sort of ABSURD conclusions and statements that lie at both the most fundamental point of the subject - and this very discussion.

Yes, Absurd. That pretty well sums up this whole discussion.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:16 am

Regardless of who is right or who is wrong, was it right to shoot down a civilian aircraft on a standard flight in a standard flight path?

(more rhetorical than anything else)

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:35 am

FourPart;1460932 wrote: Regardless of who is right or who is wrong, was it right to shoot down a civilian aircraft on a standard flight in a standard flight path?

(more rhetorical than anything else)

I'm going to guess ...... "no". How did I do?

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:36 am

FourPart;1460932 wrote: Regardless of who is right or who is wrong, was it right to shoot down a civilian aircraft on a standard flight in a standard flight path?

(more rhetorical than anything else)

Of course not. Even CIA-Trained Death Squads would know better than to do that.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:44 am

LarsMac;1460936 wrote: Of course not. Even CIA-Trained Death Squads would know better than to do that.

Oh purlease.....give me a break :sneaky:

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:49 am

Bruv;1460939 wrote: Oh purlease.....give me a break :sneaky:

I agree. Seeing a grown man sulking is so utterly repulsive.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:02 pm

Bruv;1460939 wrote: Oh purlease.....give me a break :sneaky:

No, REALLY!!

It's right there on page 322 of the CIA Death Squad Field Manual.

Civilian Aircraft --- No matter how tempting, though shalt not send missiles after Civilian Airliners.

Penalty for this offense is 5 black marks on your permanent record, and loss of looting privileges for 1 month.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:15 pm

LarsMac;1460941 wrote: No, REALLY!!

It's right there on page 322 of the CIA Death Squad Field Manual.

Nice recovery.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:23 pm

Bruv;1460947 wrote: Nice recovery.

:-6

Thanks

recovering conservative · Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:19 am

LarsMac;1460887 wrote: Did you read the exchange that lead up to that post, before responding to it?

Just curious.

And to your post,

The Sunni-Shi'i division is much bigger than Iraq, and far older and more complicated than you seem to understand.
You mean this:

So, maybe I am reading too much into this, but it seems that what is being said here is that all of the violence in Iraq of late has nothing to do with the supposed philosophic differences between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim sects, but is being perpetrated on the peace-loving Iraqi people by CIA-trained death squads whose sole purpose in life is to form some new US sponsored Islamic State?
Is this what you call winning an argument? I didn't say there were NO conflicts caused by sectarian divisions prior to the overthrow of Saddam. My point is that people living in Muslim-majority nations and their leaders are motivated by mostly mundane facts of everyday life: the availability and cost of food; weather and weather extremes causing large migrations; overtaxation and outside interference in local affairs. The main catalyst behind the growing Arab resentment that T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) realized a century ago was caused by the increasing tax demands of the collapsing Ottoman Empire.

As colonial rulers, the Ottomans had maintained control by doing the opposite of the modern American Empire - they tried to interfere as little as possible in the affairs of locals. I suspect that the latest excuse-for-failure theme splashed across U.S. mainstream media of late (most recently on display in the Time Magazine cover) that these are savage, warring peoples who just cannot be civilized, is just one more flimsy excuse for U.S. Neocon administrators and advisers, trying to excuse their failure. It's easy to blame it all on people who just want to fight over religion, but that story only works on people who never look back more than a few decades to decide whether it's a viable hypothesis.

Once tribes (and tribal loyalties are more important here than religion...which is why the Kurds aren't part of this Sunni alliance) are set against each other, either deliberately or accidentally through ignorance, then religion becomes the banner to fight under. But, the importance of religion doesn't explain the conflict, which is grounded in more mundane economic and political issues.

You forget the rebellion that followed Daddy Bush's "liberation of Kuwait".
Forget in what sense?

You ignore the sectarian violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan,

Which began after the British Empire was forced to give up power and left a power vacuum behind...like the Americans in Iraq.

Time for me to ask a question now: how were Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, and Parsees able to live together in close proximity in many cities and regions across India prior to the arrival of the British?

You also ignore all of the goings on of the Saudi government to keep things stirred up in the other Islamic countries around the region.
Ibn Saud conquered most of the Arabian Peninsula after WWI; after a long, mostly unnoticed civil war in Arabia against the Ottoman Empire. He was supported by the British during and after WWI, and later allied with the U.S. at a time when shear serendipity led to the discovery of the largest and cheapest to exploit, oil reserves in the world.

With that cash cow in hand, Saud's descendents have played the game that should be familiar to U.S. conservatives: grab as much money as possible, while bestowing some of the profits on the propagation of the most conservative and reactionary religious institutions. The huge disparity in wealth between members of the Saud clan and the average Saudi citizen, have led them to justify their position through the claim of defending the "true" Islam, and justify persecution and oppression of their Shia minorities in the eastern region of the Kingdom.

And, from FDR to the present, Saudi regimes maintain their power through close collaboration with U.S. and Israeli interests. So, what else is new? There are major and minor players in the game of global imperialism. Every empire needs their local operators who do their bidding for rewards. The Saud Family would not be able to maintain control of Arabia without U.S. support....so, again, I don't see the point here as to how this doesn't fit the overall scenario of imperialism.

recovering conservative · Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:32 pm

LarsMac;1460936 wrote: Of course not. Even CIA-Trained Death Squads would know better than to do that.

I haven't heard this story that the CIA is involved with Ukraine nazi extremists before. But, this is the coalition that Victoria Nuland put together as the favoured interim government for Ukraine:

Behind her, playing a secondary...mostly propaganda role was Valery Klitschko...yes that Klitschko...former heavyweight champion etc.. That pencil-necked dweeb trying to force a smile on her right is the notorious "Yats" - Yatseniuk, the neoliberal economist who stepped down when he was unable to push through his austerity plan on western Ukraine supporters. And on the left is Oleh Tyahnybok - the leader of the Svoboda Party, the main right wing party in Ukraine, who may have started a Hitler-like push for control by rejecting the very unpopular austerity measures. Here's Tyahnybok in an earlier picture, if you want to know where he is coming from:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2ez1m3k.jpg

Like they say: sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words!

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:50 pm

recovering conservative;1460993 wrote: You mean this:
Nope. not what I meant, at all.

Try reading the discussion that led to that comment.

recovering conservative;1460993 wrote: Is this what you call winning an argument?

I didn't know that we were trying to win an argument.

I thought we were trying to have a discussion.

Glad to see you have also studied a bit of history. I was wondering for a while.

...

Time for me to ask a question now: how were Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, and Parsees able to live together in close proximity in many cities and regions across India prior to the arrival of the British?

The reason all those folks got along in India was probably because the area was fairly regionalized and everybody had their own area of influence. People used to be happy being big fish in little ponds, rather than trying to be THE BIG FISH in the whole sea.

It was the British that "United" India, and it was the British that tickled the sectarian drive that ended up dividing the Muslims and Hindus after their departure.

On the other hand, from the moment Saddam fell, rather than uniting to drive out the invaders, the Sunni and Shi'a forces began going at each other, and the UN occupation tried in vain to keep them pacified. Meanwhile the militias stored up arms to be used once the UN forces left.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:24 pm

LarsMac;1461011 wrote: ....... from the moment Saddam fell, rather than uniting to drive out the invaders, the Sunni and Shi'a forces began going at each other .....

Isn't it fitting for a “Taking it personally pro-American to speak matter-of-factly as though the sunni and shia simply found it more enjoyable to slaughter one another than to get their country on its feet. Better to ignore the CIA-trained, supplied, and encouraged death squads ¦.

.... or just act as though it doesn't even exist.

LarsMac;1461011 wrote: ..... and the UN occupation tried in vain to keep them pacified.

¦.. and then conveniently put the blame on the only organization that would have avoided the invasion, occupation and subsequent slaughter. Tsk, tsk.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:20 am

High Threshold;1461031 wrote: Isn't it fitting for a “Taking it personally pro-American to speak matter-of-factly as though the sunni and shia simply found it more enjoyable to slaughter one another than to get their country on its feet.
Why not? They've been at it ever since Sunni & Shia split away from each other 1000s of years ago.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:40 am

High Threshold;1461031 wrote: Isn't it fitting for a “Taking it personally pro-American to speak matter-of-factly as though the sunni and shia simply found it more enjoyable to slaughter one another than to get their country on its feet. Better to ignore the CIA-trained, supplied, and encouraged death squads ¦.

.... or just act as though it doesn't even exist.

You obviously know very little about me. Even less, I venture, than I know about you.

Interesting how, when I question your absurd claims, I am simply a patriotic American denying any wrong-doing by my country.

I have never denied that the US has made some very tragic mistakes. I simply question the veracity of the information you seem to have accepted as unquestionable truth. And instead of offering proof, you offer more rumor mongering, and unsupported opinions, and call me the fool.

High Threshold;1461031 wrote: ¦.. and then conveniently put the blame on the only organization that would have avoided the invasion, occupation and subsequent slaughter. Tsk, tsk.

And, whether all members agreed with W and Tony, or not, there were a number of UN member countries with their feet in Iraq. So, it was, in fact, a UN operation.

Some were quite intimidated by Baby Bush's "You're either with us, or against us" spiel.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:19 am

LarsMac;1461036 wrote: ...... instead of offering proof, you offer more rumor mongering, and unsupported opinions ...

I guess you missed the link I supplied. Not green or blue enough for you to have noticed, hmmm.

LarsMac;1461036 wrote: ... So, it was, in fact, a UN operation.

You are full of surprises. Such a childish statement I really didn't expect from you.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:32 am

FourPart;1461035 wrote: Why not? They've been at it ever since Sunni & Shia split away from each other 1000s of years ago.

Well, during Saddam's reign one was favoured and “the other suppressed. Can't blame the friction on the general population for. Then the Americans invaded and installed a death squad specifically tasked to kidnap, torture and murder “the other. But you think it's the local population to blame for it and not the U.S.? Did you view the link that I provided? At what point in this story will the population be “allowed to live in peace? So far they haven't been offered a chance.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:40 am

High Threshold;1461042 wrote: I guess you missed the link I supplied. Not green or blue enough for you to have noticed, hmmm.

Um, that was a very interesting film, but like much of what you find on YouTube, and anywhere else on the internet, I am skeptical of its veracity.

High Threshold;1461042 wrote: You are full of surprises. Such a childish statement I really didn't expect from you.

I certainly expected more from you.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:08 am

I publicly apologize for my part in turning a discussion about the Ukraine into a discussion about Iraq and Islam.

I guess the parallels are somewhat obvious, but the Iraq discussion should probably have its own thread.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:18 am

LarsMac;1461051 wrote: Um, that was a very interesting film, but like much of what you find on YouTube, and anywhere else on the internet, I am skeptical of its veracity.

An hour-long film with quotes, interviews, historical background, and documented fact ¦.. and you find it sceptical based upon its' YouTube/Internet foundation? Well, you'll have to watch it again because it isn't YouTube/Internet based. It just happens to have been reissued on YouTube. Don't you feel better now?

LarsMac;1461051 wrote: I certainly expected more from you.

I'm always honest. If you don't expect anything other than that then you'll never be surprised. Good, huh?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:20 am

LarsMac;1461053 wrote: I publicly apologize for my part in turning a discussion about the Ukraine into a discussion about Iraq and Islam.

I guess the parallels are somewhat obvious, but the Iraq discussion should probably have its own thread.

Good idea. Just slide everything pertaining to it over to a new thread and we can continue there.

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:54 pm

Large Number of Ukraine Servicemen Unwilling to Fight, Refuse to Obey Orders of Kiev Regime

By Global Research News

Global Research, July 29, 2014

Large Number of Ukraine Servicemen Unwilling to Fight, Refuse to Obey Orders of Kiev Regime | Global Research

recovering conservative · Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:20 am

Anyone else notice that we are not hearing follow-up investigations of the Malaysian Flight 17 Crash, even after the U.S. and Ukraine claim to have investigators analyzing the wreckage? I've been noticing rumours floating about...many of them from Russian media and blogger sources - that there is more evidence from the pictures of the plane, that it was destroyed in an air to air attack from two different fighter planes. Back on July 20th, John Kerry got up in front of the cameras and claimed to "have proof" that the airliner was shot down by a BUK missile from Eastern Ukraine rebels.....so where is it? Where is the proof? Naturally, none of the stenographers in the Washington press corp. would dare ask questions like: "why should we believe you this time, when you apparently LIED about having evidence against the Syrian Government causing a poison gas attack in a Damascus suburb?" Or, "why should we accept your word on it, when the previous administration lied America into war after knowing their yellow-cake uranium and WMD evidences were also fake...and your Administration refused to prosecute or even investigate the events that led the U.S. into war?

And that's why real journalists in America, who do real, unbiased investigative journalism have been relegated to pursuing their journalism habit in the blogosphere. And, one of my favourites is Robert Parry, who runs the Consortium News site, weighs in with an analysis:

Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts

August 3, 2014

Despite U.S. spy satellites positioned over eastern Ukraine, U.S. intelligence agencies have released no images of a Buk system being transferred by Russians to rebel control, shipped into Ukraine, deployed into firing position and then being taken back to Russia. Though the Obama administration has released other images of Ukraine taken by U.S. spy satellites, the absence of any photos of a rebel-controlled Buk missile battery has been the dog not barking in the strident case that Official Washington has made in blaming the rebels and Russia for the July 17 shoot-down that killed 298 people.

Given the size of these missile batteries – containing four 16-foot-long missiles – the absence of this evidence prompted caution among U.S. intelligence analysts even as senior U.S. officials and the U.S. mainstream media rushed to judgment blaming the rebels and Russians.

he Malaysia Airlines plane, flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was not expected to be over the eastern part of Ukraine on the afternoon of July 17, but was rerouted to avoid bad weather. The plane was nearing Russian airspace when it was shot down.

Some early speculation had been that the Ukrainian military might have mistaken the plane for a Russian spy plane and attacked it in a scenario similar to the Soviet shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 in 1983 after misidentifying it as a U.S. spy plane.
Or, the conspiracy theorists who are constantly looking for 'false flag attacks,' may actually have one here, since some mainstream media news pundits have been gloating of late about how European leaders' resolve to apply sanctions against Russia have firmed up after the shootdown, because most of the passengers were Dutch tourists. Would that be enough motivation to shoot down a civilian airliner? Who knows, but the only cause for reluctance would be fear of blowback if the plot was discovered early, or early enough to still be part of the news cycle. The last thing we can expect is political or military leaders to have any qualms about killing large numbers of civilians after what we have experienced in recent times!

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:32 pm

I've been noticing rumours floating about...
I think that pretty much says it all.

many of them from Russian media and blogger sources
Ah impartiality at its finest.

recovering conservative · Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:02 am

LarsMac;1461421 wrote: I think that pretty much says it all.

Ah impartiality at its finest.

So, where is Obummer's evidence? Since this incident is being used to justify supplying arms to the Kiev Government that is dropping bombs and artillery shells on civilian populations...how come CNN never finds the time to report what's happening to Lugansk and Donetsk?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:38 am

If anyone DID have any EVIDENCE, from either side, they'd be on it like a swarm of ants. At best all they have is "Reason To Believe", which is just a more plausible way of saying "This Bloke Down The Pub Told Me..."

Claims of evidence is no evidence at all if it can't be produced to validate its existence.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:13 am

recovering conservative;1461435 wrote: So, where is Obummer's evidence? Since this incident is being used to justify supplying arms to the Kiev Government that is dropping bombs and artillery shells on civilian populations...how come CNN never finds the time to report what's happening to Lugansk and Donetsk?

Funny, I was just watching a CNN report about the fighting in Eastern Ukraine.

So you really don't know what CNN is reporting, I bet.

Weird when a conversation just depends upon whose propaganda you listen to.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:44 am

LarsMac;1461446 wrote: Funny, I was just watching a CNN report about the fighting in Eastern Ukraine.

So you really don't know what CNN is reporting, I bet.

Weird when a conversation just depends upon whose propaganda you listen to.
And what emphasis is placed on what words.

For example, read the following sentence over & over again, emphasizing each word in turn...

"I never said she stole my money".

The entire meaning of the sentence is changed by whichever word you happen to be emphasizing. Admittedly, an over simplified example, but the principle is the same.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:20 am

FourPart;1461452 wrote: And what emphasis is placed on what words.

For example, read the following sentence over & over again, emphasizing each word in turn...

"I never said she stole my money".

The entire meaning of the sentence is changed by whichever word you happen to be emphasizing. Admittedly, an over simplified example, but the principle is the same.

True enough. and in written media, often the emphasis depends on the reader.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:10 am

FourPart;1461452 wrote: And what emphasis is placed on what words.

For example, read the following sentence over & over again, emphasizing each word in turn...

"I never said she stole my money".

The entire meaning of the sentence is changed by whichever word you happen to be emphasizing. Admittedly, an over simplified example, but the principle is the same.

I cannot agree more. The use of words, the "fabrication" of words, the mixing of words, and the emphsis of words (in turn) have played a deadly role recently: