Split Thread: Is Ukraine to blame for Putin's invasion

[The Great Zaganza]

And because of that, calling the invasion a "mistake" seems appropriate to you?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think the solution of the current crisis is to constantly bash Russia.

It's more complicated, more complex than that.

Constantly attacking Russia (UK-US style) doesn't seem to be helping the Ukrainians much, and may lead to a nuclear war. The human rights situation in Russia and Belarus seems also to be worsening.

What do you mean "May lead to nuclear war"? Ukraine doesn't have nukes. The only way this leads to nuclear war is if you people decide to employ nuclear weapons in an attempt to steal more or just keep those portions of Ukraine you unlawfully occupy. If Russia chooses to escalate it's war of aggression with nukes only Russia is to blame. To avoid nuclear war, Russia just has to not use nukes. No other country is going to.

There are no complexities here. You people just need to return to your 2013 borders and shut up and color.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think the solution of the current crisis is to constantly bash Russia.

You are completely correct, that's no solution at all.

The solution is to defeat Russia.

But since it is not within our powers on this board to do that, since we must leave its defeat to the people actually fighting, I'm satisfied with bashing Russia on this board until they are defeated.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Craig4

You people just need to return to your 2013 borders and shut up and color.

Now, now. Saying "you people" isn't justified. Michel H isn't a Russian, he's just a tankie.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

And because of that, calling the invasion a "mistake" seems appropriate to you?

I would also call the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, and of Iraq in 2003 by the U.S. and allies (which included Ukraine in the case of Iraq) "mistakes", without necessarily feeling an urge to use very strong words against the U.S. because of these invasions.

I am aware of 9/11, like I am aware of (in my opinion) unfair "sanctions" of various kinds imposed on Russia from 2014.

Powerful nations should use their military strengths with restraint, but this is far from always being the case.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Michel H

..Powerful nations should use their military strengths with restraint, but this is far from always being the case.

I agree. For example: Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I would also call the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, and of Iraq in 2003 by the U.S. and allies (which included Ukraine in the case of Iraq) "mistakes", without necessarily feeling an urge to use very strong words against the U.S. because of these invasions.

I am aware of 9/11, like I am aware of (in my opinion) unfair "sanctions" of various kinds imposed on Russia from 2014.

Powerful nations should use their military strengths with restraint, but this is far from always being the case.

Is "Whataboutism" the only card you got left to play in your making excuses for Putin?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Is "Whataboutism" the only card you got left to play in your making excuses for Putin?

I wouldn't call this "whataboutism", international context is important, Russia shouldn't be required to obey stricter moral standards than the U.S., even though one can always deplore unnecessary military operations.

There are other arguments, though, for example reports that Crimea is pro-Russian.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I wouldn't call this "whataboutism", international context is important, Russia shouldn't be required to obey stricter moral standards than the U.S., even though one can always deplore unnecessary military operations.

There are other arguments, though, for example reports that Crimea is pro-Russian.

1. Not to hard too work out the source of those reports is it? Vosdvizhenka str. 1

2. Even if Crimea is pro Russian, that is not a justification for Russia to invade.... Samoa is pro New Zealand.... maybe we should invade it!

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I would also call the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, and of Iraq in 2003 by the U.S. and allies (which included Ukraine in the case of Iraq) "mistakes", without necessarily feeling an urge to use very strong words against the U.S. because of these invasions.

Afghanistan had openly harboured Al Qaida that had attacked the US directly, and bragged about it. The prospect of new attacks caused the U.S. to invade Afghanistan.
Iraq had recently invaded its neighbours three times. There was every reason to put a stop on it. However, fictitious weapons of mass destruction was not a good excuse, and the subsequent reorganisation of Iraq and Afghanistan were completely botched.

The sanctions were imposed on Russia precisely because it invaded its neighbours. Russia may feel it has a right to invade its neighbours, but might is not right.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I would also call the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, and of Iraq in 2003 by the U.S. and allies (which included Ukraine in the case of Iraq) "mistakes", without necessarily feeling an urge to use very strong words against the U.S. because of these invasions.

I am aware of 9/11, like I am aware of (in my opinion) unfair "sanctions" of various kinds imposed on Russia from 2014.

Powerful nations should use their military strengths with restraint, but this is far from always being the case.

You keep turning things around.
While I agree with you that the especially the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was done on a flimsy excuse, they were in response to an attack on the US by terrorists and agreed upon by the UN (including Russia). In fact, Russia used the example for it's similar actions in Syria, so that's not different.

But you keep acting as if the actions in 2014 were implemented out of nowhere, whereas they were the response to Russia's naked invasion of Ukrainian territory without any provocation at all.
In fact, all acts of terrorism in that conflict come from pro-Russian groups being sheltered in and paid for by Russia.
At no point in time were the people in Crimea or the current occupied territories treated anywhere as badly as Russia is now treating its new 'citizens'.

If anything this would indicate Russia should actually be curtailed by the UN, but the stupid veto thing implemented there means that will never happen.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

You keep turning things around.
While I agree with you that the especially the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was done on a flimsy excuse, they were in response to an attack on the US by terrorists and agreed upon by the UN (including Russia).

No, this is not true:

Quote:

Russian President Vladimir Putin[2][3] stated that the war was unjustified

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War).

I believe both invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq) were illegal:

Quote:

According to Parliament briefing papers ‘the initial invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was therefore not conducted with the authorisation of a specific UN Security Council Resolution’[23]

(https://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/06/was...anistan-legal/).

Quote:

In September 2004, then-United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated, "I have indicated that it is not in accordance with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal".[7][8]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War).

U.S. leaders had a right to be concerned about terrorism, and the safety of their citizens after 9/11.

However, I believe the proper way to address this issue was to stop (or strongly limit) support for Israel until it stops its illegal occupations, and (for themselves) to stop committing major crimes abroad, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 (2 years before).

But this has never been done, and this means the world is "politically sick", (partly) because of U.S. crimes and bad example.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Why are you so upset about attacks in former Yugoslavia? After all, people who spoke a certain language wanted to be a country with the others who did.

Exactly what you are cheering Putin on for violently doing now. By your own standards those attacks were totally justified.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Why are you so upset about attacks in former Yugoslavia? After all, people who spoke a certain language wanted to be a country with the others who did.

Exactly what you are cheering Putin on for violently doing now. By your own standards those attacks were totally justified.

I criticize the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO in 1999 because of its extreme and unnecessary violence (see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_b...a_headquarters).

However, I agree the fight for its independence by Kosovo seems to have a real legitimacy, but this independence (recognized by all countries) has perhaps been made more difficult to achieve by NATO crimes.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I criticize the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO in 1999 because of its extreme and unnecessary violence (see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_b...a_headquarters).

However, I agree the fight for its independence by Kosovo seems to have a real legitimacy, but this independence (recognized by all countries) has perhaps been made more difficult to achieve by NATO crimes.

And yet you agree with Putin's far far worse violence, in Chechnya, Syria and now Ukraine.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I criticize the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO in 1999 because of its extreme and unnecessary violence (see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_b...a_headquarters).

However, I agree the fight for its independence by Kosovo seems to have a real legitimacy, but this independence (recognized by all countries) has perhaps been made more difficult to achieve by NATO crimes.

Well yes, you would oppose anything intended to stop genocide.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

And yet you agree with Putin's far far worse violence, in Chechnya, Syria and now Ukraine.

No, I don't agree with Putin's violence in Ukraine, see what I wrote recently:

Originally Posted by Michel H

However, I am not saying Putin was right to invade in February 2022, I still believe this was a mistake.

However, I believe that the best way to end this war now would be, for Ukraine, to make the necessary territorial concessions, which would solve a long-standing problem.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I don't agree with Putin's violence in Ukraine, see what I wrote recently:


However, I believe that the best way to end this war now would be, for Ukraine, to make the necessary territorial concessions, which would solve a long-standing problem.

There is no long standing problem. Russia just needs to stay in their borders like nearly every other nation on earth. I know you're going to bring up Iraq and Afghanistan but don't bother. Neither were annexed by anyone. Russia stole territory. As to what you people do with your own pipeline, that's on you.

Don't you people learn not to steal in Kindergarten? Do they not teach that in your schools?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Craig4

There is no long standing problem. Russia just needs to stay in their borders like nearly every other nation on earth. I know you're going to bring up Iraq and Afghanistan but don't bother. Neither were annexed by anyone. Russia stole territory. As to what you people do with your own pipeline, that's on you.

Don't you people learn not to steal in Kindergarten? Do they not teach that in your schools?

I don't think your own kindergarten taught you to call Belgians "Russians".

Afghanistan may not have been annexed by the U.S., but Israel did annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, with U.S. support (and there was no referendum).

I believe Crimea is owned primarily by (Russian-speaking) Crimeans, who should be free to choose the country they want to join.

This is the important, and internationally recognized, principle of self-determination. This is more important than the small print in an old treaty.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think your own kindergarten taught you to call Belgians "Russians".

Afghanistan may not have been annexed by the U.S., but Israel did annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, with U.S. support (and there was no referendum).

I believe Crimea is owned primarily by (Russian-speaking) Crimeans, who should be free to choose the country they want to join.

This is the important, and internationally recognized, principle of self-determination. This is more important than the small print in an old treaty.

I call the Belgians I encounter Belgians.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think your own kindergarten taught you to call Belgians "Russians".

Afghanistan may not have been annexed by the U.S., but Israel did annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, with U.S. support (and there was no referendum).

I believe Crimea is owned primarily by (Russian-speaking) Crimeans, who should be free to choose the country they want to join.

This is the important, and internationally recognized, principle of self-determination. This is more important than the small print in an old treaty.

Yet they were not allowed to choose were they? They were annexed by violence and then given the choice to join Russia or join Russia.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Don't you people learn not to steal in Kindergarten? Do they not teach that in your schools?

Perhaps they learn to let the thief keep the stuff, and in this way achieve a peaceful solution that make everybody happy …

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Perhaps they learn to let the thief keep the stuff, and in this way achieve a peaceful solution that make everybody happy …

except the people the stuff was stolen from. They tend to be bitter.
I give you France losing Alsace Lorraine in 1870......

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Yet they were not allowed to choose were they? They were annexed by violence and then given the choice to join Russia or join Russia.

There was a referendum in Crimea, which took place in March 2014, in which citizens of Crimea voted to join Russia.

You might be a little skeptical about the official results, but there are other sources, which show that (mostly) Russian-speaking Crimea (even the Crimean Tatars) is pro-Russian:

Quote:

In December 2019, Levada-Center was again commissioned by John O'Loughlin, College Professor of Distinction and Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Gerard Toal (Gearóid Ó Tuathail), Professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech's National Capital Region campus, to carry-out a survey of Crimea's attitudes towards their referendum and living as a part of Russia. The survey aimed to repeat the questions of their 2014 survey. The 2019 survey found that 82% of Crimea's population supported Crimea's accession to Russia, as opposed to 86% in 2014. The survey also found that 58% of Crimean Tatars now supported Crimea's accession to Russia, as opposed to 39% in 2014.[50] ...
Post-referendum polls
The results of a survey by the U.S. government Broadcasting Board of Governors agency, conducted April 21–29, 2014, showed that 83% of Crimeans felt that the results of the March 16 referendum on Crimea's status likely reflected the views of most people there, whereas this view is shared only by 30% in the rest of Ukraine.[153]

According to the Gallup's survey performed on April 21–27, 82.8% of Crimean people consider the referendum results reflecting most Crimeans' views,[154] and 73.9% of Crimeans say Crimea's becoming part of Russia will make life better for themselves and their families, while 5.5% disagree.[154]

According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, the majority of Crimean residents say they believed the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).[155]

According to a poll of the Crimeans by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on January 16–22, 2015: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."[156] Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16–22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation."[156]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_C...tus_referendum)

[theprestige]

The time for Russia to lean on polls and referenda was before February of last year.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Michel H

There was a referendum in Crimea, which took place in March 2014, in which citizens of Crimea voted to join Russia.

You might be a little skeptical about the official results)

A little? I am always suspicious of any "elections" involving dictatorships like Russia.

And yes... Russia is a totalitarian dictatorship.... Putin may have been elected to position the of President of Russia, but its not hard to be voted in when you use your country's security forces to intimidate, arrest, jail and murder your political opponents. Do you recognize any of the following names.

Denis Voronenkov
Boris Nemtsov
Sergei Magnitsky
Boris Berezovsky
Stanislav Markelov
Anastasia Baburova
Natalia Estemirova
Anna Politkovskaya
Alexander Litvinenko
Sergei Yushenkov
Yuri Shchekochikhin

All critics or political opponents of your Dear Leader, all assassinated almost certainly by Russian security forces at his behest.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

A little? I am always suspicious of any "elections" involving dictatorships like Russia.

And yes... Russia is a totalitarian dictatorship.... Putin may have been elected to position the of President of Russia, but its not hard to be voted in when you use your country's security forces to intimidate, arrest, jail and murder your political opponents. Do you recognize any of the following names.

Denis Voronenkov
Boris Nemtsov
Sergei Magnitsky
Boris Berezovsky
Stanislav Markelov
Anastasia Baburova
Natalia Estemirova
Anna Politkovskaya
Alexander Litvinenko
Sergei Yushenkov
Yuri Shchekochikhin

All critics or political opponents of your Dear Leader, all assassinated almost certainly by Russian security forces at his behest.

Not my Dear Leader, Russia's leader Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

There are indeed serious concerns about democracy in both Russia and Belarus (and you didn't even mention Putin's main opponent Alexei Navalny, currently in jail, in your list).

There are, however, serious concerns about democracy in Ukraine too:

Quote:

Ukraine bans former president’s party
The Party of Regions was outlawed just a day after Joe Biden praised Kiev’s “democracy” ... The party of former president Viktor Yanukovich, once Ukraine’s largest, was banned on Tuesday by a Kiev court acting on a government request. ... The Ukrainian government is “currently determining” the value of the party’s assets, which will be seized under a law enacted in May 2022. It enables President Vladimir Zelensky’s government to ban any party that challenges its official position, in particular when it comes to the conflict with Russia. A court’s decisions are final and cannot be appealed.

The law has been used to ban a dozen parties so far. The largest parliamentary opposition bloc, Opposition Platform – For Life, was outlawed last June.

(https://www.rt.com/russia/571867-ukr...egions-banned/).

This war is bad for democracy, this is why it should be stopped quickly in my opinion, in a way based on democracy, based on the people's will.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

There was a referendum in Crimea, which took place in March 2014, in which citizens of Crimea voted to join Russia.

You might be a little skeptical about the official results, but there are other sources, which show that (mostly) Russian-speaking Crimea (even the Crimean Tatars) is pro-Russian:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_C...tus_referendum)

And it happened after the orc infestation so it means nothing. Only Ukraine runs referendums in Ukraine. You people need to learn your place and that place is in your 2013 borders.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Craig4

And it happened after the orc infestation so it means nothing. Only Ukraine runs referendums in Ukraine. You people need to learn your place and that place is in your 2013 borders.

The referendum took place on March 16, 2014, when Crimea was an independent state, according to its own authorities, since March 11 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declar...blic_of_Crimea).

Putin signed the annexation treaty 2 days later, on March 18.

From the reports I have read, I don't think the citizens of Ukraine were pressured or scared into voting for Russia (similarly, I don't think the Crimeans who were interviewed later were particularly scared, otherwise the polls would not have been valid).

I don't know if you have already seen this 2017 video by the BBC: https://youtu.be/1QOPpUQKDbQ?t=35 :

Quote:

Unger Kazuko welcomes Russian rule. Crimea, she says, has returned home. She chides Western leaders who disagree: "We don't understand them because we are already for 3 years (we) in Russia. We changed everything, we changed our rules, our documents, everything. And our soul is in Russia, and I even have this T-shirt, T-shirt with Putin and the words are: "In Putin we trust", like "In God we trust" (laughs). ... Svetlana Gavilenko had opposed the annexation, but 3 years on her perspective on Russia has changed: "They were expected (sic) us, they were happy to have us back. Ukraine are not, they really hate us, they think everyone here is a traitor. Even if you were ever pro-Ukrainian, or you're now pro-Ukrainian, you're still a traitor because you didn't leave".

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

The referendum took place on March 16, 2014, when Crimea was an independent state, according to its own authorities, since March 11 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declar...blic_of_Crimea).

Putin signed the annexation treaty 2 days later, on March 18.

From the reports I have read, I don't think the citizens of Ukraine were pressured or scared into voting for Russia (similarly, I don't think the Crimeans who were interviewed later were particularly scared, otherwise the polls would not have been valid).

I don't know if you have already see this 2017 video by the BBC: https://youtu.be/1QOPpUQKDbQ?t=35 :

Of course you would say that. You're a Russian.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Michel H

There was a referendum in Crimea, which took place in March 2014, in which citizens of Crimea voted to join Russia.

And there were elections held in Afghanistan and Iraq after the invasions, and the governments elected were friendly to and cooperated with the West.

So why exactly are you criticizing the invasions when the will of the people after the fact were fine with it?

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Michel H

From the reports I have read, I don't think the citizens of Ukraine were pressured or scared into voting for Russia (similarly, I don't think the Crimeans who were interviewed later were particularly scared, otherwise the polls would not have been valid).

What reports are those? Western journalists were not allowed to report from Crimea. Independent journalists were not allowed to report from Crimea.

Heck, Crimean journalists were barely allowed to report from Crimea.

Here's a report from 2014. Reading this, do you feel confident about any report you have read from Crimea that has a positive spin on the new Russian government?

Here's a report from 2021, on the state of journalism in Crimea. It might be negative, but it's not that different from reports on journalism in the rest of Russia.

How can you believe any of this? If your government started abducting, torturing and murdering journalists and banning journalists from any other country, would you trust what the remaining journalists were saying? Would you trust any report from your government?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

And there were elections held in Afghanistan and Iraq after the invasions, and the governments elected were friendly to and cooperated with the West.

So why exactly are you criticizing the invasions when the will of the people after the fact were fine with it?

In Afghanistan, there was a long Taliban insurgency which led to an eventual collapse of the pro-Western government, while in Iraq there was a terrible Islamic State insurgency which was finally crushed, these civil wars adding casualties and destructions (in Fallujah, for example) to the military casualties and destructions caused by the military invasions. So one cannot say there was unanimity in these two countries to support the (illegal, pro-Israel) invaders.

There was also a severe global financial crisis in 2007-2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E...nancial_crisis) which has been linked to the Iraq war.

A Brown University report explains:

Quote:

Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths
A report from the Costs of War project at Brown University revealed that 20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people.

.

The human rights and economic situations in Afghanistan now are very bad.

You might argue that Saddam Hussein is no longer president of Iraq. Were he still alive, he would be 85 years old now, and I doubt he would still be president. It is not entirely clear the current authorities in Iraq are much better than him (they are probably a little more pro-American, but that's not necessarily a good thing).

The problem here is the usual one: U.S. leaders have done what they like to do (usually brutal crimes), rather than what they should do (rein in Israel).

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Michel H

In Afghanistan, there was a long Taliban insurgency which led to an eventual collapse of the pro-Western government, while in Iraq there was a terrible Islamic State insurgency which was finally crushed, these civil wars adding casualties and destructions (in Fallujah, for example) to the military casualties and destructions caused by the military invasions. So one cannot say there was unanimity in these two countries to support the (illegal, pro-Israel) invaders.

What has that got to do with anything? Taliban and IS didn't have popular support, or the elections would have shown that.

And what has pro-Isral got to do with it?

What about using that same kind of critical thinking for Crimea?

[aniri]

Originally Posted by Michel H

You might be a little skeptical about the official results, but there are other sources, which show that (mostly) Russian-speaking Crimea (even the Crimean Tatars) is pro-Russian:

On the 3rd March 2014, the Crimean tatar Reshat Amet approached an administrative building in Crimea and took out a paper with the words "No to the occupation!" written on it. He stood there for several minutes, then was taken away by armed people, tortured and killed. His body was throun out in the field. That's how "pro-Russian" Crimean tatars are and that's how the 'pieceful' occupation of Crimea took place.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

What reports are those? Western journalists were not allowed to report from Crimea. Independent journalists were not allowed to report from Crimea.

Heck, Crimean journalists were barely allowed to report from Crimea.

Here's a report from 2014. Reading this, do you feel confident about any report you have read from Crimea that has a positive spin on the new Russian government?

Here's a report from 2021, on the state of journalism in Crimea. It might be negative, but it's not that different from reports on journalism in the rest of Russia.

How can you believe any of this? If your government started abducting, torturing and murdering journalists and banning journalists from any other country, would you trust what the remaining journalists were saying? Would you trust any report from your government?

I have read wikipedia a lot (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_C...tus_referendum).

This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOPpUQKDbQ&t=35s is a report by a BBC journalist (Steve Rosenberg), done in 2017 in Crimea (already mentioned).

I don't think Rosenberg was tortured or persecuted in any way.

I wouldn't say that press freedom in Russia is good right now, from what I have read.

But it is made much worse by the war, in which the West and Ukraine have a huge responsibility (Biden especially, note that Trump is now regaining some credibility because he is rightfully criticizing Biden on Ukraine).

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by aniri

On the 3rd March 2014, the Crimean tatar Reshat Amet approached an administrative building in Crimea and took out a paper with the words "No to the occupation!" written on it. He stood there for several minutes, then was taken away by armed people, tortured and killed. His body was throun out in the field. That's how "pro-Russian" Crimean tatars are and that's how the 'pieceful' occupation of Crimea took place.

The beginning of March 2014 was a particularly critical time for Crimea.

In some circumstances, it is probably better to keep a low profile.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

What has that got to do with anything? Taliban and IS didn't have popular support, or the elections would have shown that.

And what has pro-Isral got to do with it?

What about using that same kind of critical thinking for Crimea?

I believe 9/11 happened largely because of U.S.' pro-Israel policies.

[Ryokan]

Right.

If you believe official reports from a country who imprisons, tortures and murders journalists who go against the official narrative, why not also throw in some conspiracy theories?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Right.

If you believe official reports from a country who imprisons, tortures and murders journalists who go against the official narrative, why not also throw in some conspiracy theories?

It's not a conspiracy theory, Osama bin Laden explained it himself in 2004:

Quote:

Despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.

God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed - when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the US sixth fleet.

In those difficult moments many emotions came over me which are hard to describe, but which produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and a strong determination to punish the unjust.

As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

(https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...da.september11)