1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidIf they do go to wiki, they'll find out nowhere near 200 protesters were killed, that somewhere between 14-20 police were killed by the mob, that an agreement was reached between the President and opposition leaders but then ignored by armed extremists in control of government buildings (including parliament) and that the "impeachment" was illegal because it failed to comply with the Ukrainian Constitution's requirement that any articles first go to its Constitutional Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
Stop lying and we’ll just stop lying.
Your right wing fantasy that a popular street protest in which nearly 200 protestors were slain is actually an illegal coup because the Russian puppet was ousted by the representatives of the people in their duly elected parliament is just that, a right wing fantasy spun as some sort of justification for the brutal invasion of a soverei ...[text shortened]... one who wants to know the truth about the Maidan uprising can go to wiki and make their own mind up.
Those are the facts and your claims I'm "lying" about them because they clash with the neocon propaganda that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker are contemptible.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidOooh lying by omission isn’t that against the law or something
If they do go to wiki, they'll find out nowhere near 200 protesters were killed, that somewhere between 14-20 police were killed by the mob, that an agreement was reached between the President and opposition leaders but then ignored by armed extremists in control of government buildings (including parliament) and that the "impeachment" was illegal because it failed to com ...[text shortened]... hey clash with the neocon propaganda that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker are contemptible.
Yeah a bit of an exaggeration by me I had the figure of 162 in my head for some reason but :-
“ In January and February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special riot police resulted in the deaths of 108 protesters and 13 police officers,[19] and the wounding of many others. The first protesters were killed in fierce clashes with police on Hrushevsky Street on 19–22 January. Following this, protesters occupied government buildings throughout the country. The deadliest clashes were on 18–20 February, which saw the most severe violence in Ukraine since it regained independence.[30] Thousands of protesters advanced towards parliament, led by activists with shields and helmets, and were fired on by police snipers.[19] On 21 February, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition was signed that called for the formation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections.[31] The following day, police withdrew from central Kyiv, which came under effective control of the protesters. Yanukovych fled the city and then the country.[32] That day, the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from office by 328 to 0 (72.8% of the parliament's 450 members).[33][34][35][31]”
Still a hundred and eight compared to thirteen, are you sure it wasn’t the security services that were trying to instigate a coup?
Oh BTW 13 is somewhere between 12 and 14 I think.
1 edit
@kevcvs57 said"As of 2 March, The Ministry of Internal Affairs reported 18 police officer fatalities related to the conflict.[1] "
Oooh lying by omission isn’t that against the law or something
Yeah a bit of an exaggeration by me I had the figure of 162 in my head for some reason but :-
“ In January and February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special riot police resulted in the deaths of 108 protesters and 13 police officers,[19] and the wounding of many others. The first protest ...[text shortened]... ty services that were trying to instigate a coup?
Oh BTW 13 is somewhere between 12 and 14 I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_during_the_Revolution_of_Dignity
Even assuming excessive force was used and even assuming President Yanukovych was somehow responsible for it, the fact remains that he was not impeached under the legal requirements nor did he resign in person before the Verkhovna Rada as required by the Ukraine's Constitution. Thus his removal was illegal and armed extremists who refused to recognize an agreement made between the legal, elected President and the main opposition parties controlled government buildings by force. I don't know what you would honestly call such a situation but an "armed coup".
And all because a legally elected President wouldn't sign a trade deal the West wanted!
From those events flowed all that has followed.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@no1marauder saidSo difficult to tell a tall, tale when facts get in the way/
"As of 2 March, The Ministry of Internal Affairs reported 18 police officer fatalities related to the conflict.[1] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_during_the_Revolution_of_Dignity
Even assuming excessive force was used and even assuming President Yanukovych was somehow responsible for it, the fact remains that he was not impeached under the leg ...[text shortened]... ident wouldn't sign a trade deal the West wanted!
From those events flowed all that has followed.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidAssuming assuming have you lost the plot!
"As of 2 March, The Ministry of Internal Affairs reported 18 police officer fatalities related to the conflict.[1] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_during_the_Revolution_of_Dignity
Even assuming excessive force was used and even assuming President Yanukovych was somehow responsible for it, the fact remains that he was not impeached under the leg ...[text shortened]... ident wouldn't sign a trade deal the West wanted!
From those events flowed all that has followed.
108 dead!
Hey Ukraine isn’t the US, the Russian puppet had already scarpered back to the Kremlin when the Ukrainian Parliament voted him out of office.
This straw clutching of yours is not going to cut it. Neither Russia nor you have any right to decide how Ukraine governs itself.
I get that you want to distract everyone from what Putin is doing with tales of historical NATO wrong doing and legal niceties that should be afforded to a puppet of the Kremlin who is responsible for deaths of 108 of his own citizens. Oh what shall we do.
And to think some folks seem to be more concerned with the rape and slaughter of civilians that Putin is inflicting on Ukraine right now.
Have you got a Russian granny tucked away somewhere? Because your attitude to the suffering of the Ukrainian people only makes sense if you have a Russian dog in this flight.
What do you think your hero Locke would make of Putin’s treatment of those Ukrainians, didn’t god bestow the same rights and freedoms on them that he bestowed on you?
@kevcvs57 saidIt is positions like yours which insure that many more Ukrainians (and Russians) will die in the coming months.
Assuming assuming have you lost the plot!
108 dead!
Hey Ukraine isn’t the US, the Russian puppet had already scarpered back to the Kremlin when the Ukrainian Parliament voted him out of office.
This straw clutching of yours is not going to cut it. Neither Russia nor you have any right to decide how Ukraine governs itself.
I get that you want to distract everyone from wha ...[text shortened]... f those Ukrainians, didn’t god bestow the same rights and freedoms on them that he bestowed on you?
My position is that a reasonable settlement should be reached which respects the right of self-determination, Russian and Ukrainian security concerns and other matters.
Tell me how is that a "pro-Russian" position? I've already said on numerous occasions the attack was unjustified but it happened and now it must be resolved in a realistic matter. That is hardly supportive of continuation of the suffering of the People in the area.
@no1marauder saidA reasonable settlement with Putin? Yeah ok
It is positions like yours which insure that many more Ukrainians (and Russians) will die in the coming months.
My position is that a reasonable settlement should be reached which respects the right of self-determination, Russian and Ukrainian security concerns and other matters.
Tell me how is that a "pro-Russian" position? I've already said on numerous occasions ...[text shortened]... listic matter. That is hardly supportive of continuation of the suffering of the People in the area.
Its a pro Russian position because it assumes that Russia has god given or legal right to coerce its smaller neighbours in regards of their defence and even economic arrangements.
This thing kicked off in 2014 when, as we have discussed Putin ordered the leader of Ukraine not to sign an agreement with the EU that would pave the way for EU membership. This has nothing to do with Ukraines imaginary NATO membership, which anyone even vaguely interested in these matters knows that Ukraine was never, and will never, get the 30 votes required to join NATO.
For an absolute certainty Putin knew it and still knows it. So this is not about Putin’s security concerns regarding NATO this is about realising Putin’s dream of restoring the Russian empire in Europe, it’s also about controlling his own populace and big bad NATO and a Neo Nazi neighbour are excellent narratives for that purpose.
To give him credit he is creating a Ukraine that despises its once close neighbour and his actions are leading to countries hitherto not interested in NATO membership becoming very keen indeed. It’s almost a self fulfilling prophecy.
You cannot come to terms with someone who needs you as an enemy for domestic reasons, you could never concede enough.
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidYour neocon propaganda is going to talk itself into WWIII.
A reasonable settlement with Putin? Yeah ok
Its a pro Russian position because it assumes that Russia has god given or legal right to coerce its smaller neighbours in regards of their defence and even economic arrangements.
This thing kicked off in 2014 when, as we have discussed Putin ordered the leader of Ukraine not to sign an agreement with the EU that would pave the ...[text shortened]... o terms with someone who needs you as an enemy for domestic reasons, you could never concede enough.
Apparently a country should be able to make any arrangements they want except if they decide to make some the West doesn't like they're doing so under order of Putin and that is a sufficient reason for an elected President to be violently, illegally overthrown.
@no1marauder
Are you frigging SERIOUS? Did you take a look at Mariupol lately? You think that was the result of a massive battle between equal forces ending up with the whole city burned to the ground?
I would LOVE to see you even TRY to justify that.
UKRAINE IS A SOVERIEGN COUNTRY ATTACKED FOR NO REASON BUT THE DESIRE BY PUTIN TO START THE REBUILD OF THE SOVIET EMPIRE.
Prove me wrong, prove to me Putin is SO altruistic he only has his people at heart.
@Mott-The-Hoople
Hey, take your wimpy ass and shove it in Putin's face you fukking ASSSWIPE and I am ASHAMED we were in the same Air Force.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidIt’s just the truth, you and Putin are the real Neo cons.
Your neocon propaganda is going to talk itself into WWIII.
Apparently a country should be able to make any arrangements they want except if they decide to make some the West doesn't like they're doing so under order of Putin and that is a sufficient reason for an elected President to be violently, illegally overthrown.
Again the violence was instigated and carried by, and the under the direction of, Putin’s puppet who was VOTED out of office.
You don’t understand parliamentary democracy the parliament has the right to hold a vote of no confidence in an elected leader.
Stop lying about Ukraine in order to deflect from Putin’s crimes there it’s a sickening strategy.
The Ukrainians through their elected representatives have the right to dispense with a leader who is clearly taking his orders from a foreign power to the detriment of the Ukrainian people.
This level of hypocrisy from someone who supported the impeachment of an elected POTUS twice for less obvious crimes is astounding hypocrisy.
@kevcvs57 saidI suggest you review the Ukrainian Constitution; it has a President, not a Prime Minister and he can't be removed by a "vote of no confidence". He must be impeached and the articles of impeachment must be first reviewed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine before any final impeachment vote.
It’s just the truth, you and Putin are the real Neo cons.
Again the violence was instigated and carried by, and the under the direction of, Putin’s puppet who was VOTED out of office.
You don’t understand parliamentary democracy the parliament has the right to hold a vote of no confidence in an elected leader.
Stop lying about Ukraine in order to deflect from Putin’s crim ...[text shortened]... supported the impeachment of an elected POTUS twice for less obvious crimes is astounding hypocrisy.
This was not done in 2014 and thus the "process" was illegal.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidA technically illegal but totally moral move by the Ukrainian parliament and you contend that this somehow mitigates or even justifies the invasion of Ukraine by a regime that bans unfriendly media outlets, jails and executes dissenters, and is know to stuff ballot boxes and ban political parties.
I suggest you review the Ukrainian Constitution; it has a President, not a Prime Minister and he can't be removed by a "vote of no confidence". He must be impeached and the articles of impeachment must be first reviewed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine before any final impeachment vote.
This was not done in 2014 and thus the "process" was illegal.
You know your not making any actual sense so why do you bother.
