Ukrainian troops sent by Kiev defect to anti-government protesters.

[another_liberal]

Crews of Ukrainian Army tanks and armored personnel carriers entering the eastern city of Kramatorsk chose to disobey orders to open fire on the anti-government protesters who surrounded their vehicles this morning. They have instead defected to join the very protesters whom it was their mission to crush.

Anti-govt protesters seize Ukrainian APCs, army units 'switch sides'.

Kiev’s military faced off with protesters in east Ukraine on Wednesday to sort out their differences…and found none. Soldiers appeared reluctant to go into battle against anti-government activists. When Ukrainian tanks entered downtown Kramatorsk as part of Kiev’s military operation against anti-government protesters in the east of the country, they were stopped in their tracks, surrounded by crowds of local residents. One YouTube video of what happened next shows a woman coming to a soldier with the reproach: “You are the army, you must protect the people.”

“We are not going to shoot, we weren’t even going to,” is the soldier’s reply.

Similar conversations could be heard at each of several tanks which entered the city, with locals promising to defend their neighbors, in case the soldiers start a military operation. Tanks parked in downtown Kramatorsk have turned into hotspots for political discussion, with people beside the vehicles trying to get their views through to people on top of the tanks.

Another video features the Kramatorsk crowds loudly chanting “Army with the people” and applauding the soldiers as they were leaving their tanks. “Guys, we are with you! You are great!” women are heard yelling to the vacating soldiers. Six Ukrainian tanks in Kramatorsk actually switched sides and began flying Russian flags on Wednesday.

(snip)

Read more, and see several videos of this incident, at: http://rt.com/news/ukrainian-tanks-kramatorsk-civilians-840/

[dipsydoodle]

1. Guardian live update reports the same

11.23am BST

It looks like the Ukranian attempt to reassert control in Slavyansk has gone awry, with some troops going over to the pro-Russian side. This from Reuters.

At least three armoured personal carriers that were driven in to the eastern Ukrainian city of Slavyansk had been under the control of Ukrainian armed forces earlier on Wednesday, Reuters photographers said.

A soldier manning one of the troop carriers now under the control of pro-Russian separatists identified himself to Reuters as being a member of Ukraine's 25th paratrooper division from Dnipropetrovsk.

He said: "All the soldiers and the officers are here. We are all boys who won't shoot our own people."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/ukraine-on-the-brink-live-blog-16-april

There are also reports elsewhere that another 50 armoured cars are on the way to that area from the west in Ukraine and that Odessa is in the process of naming itself a Republic.

[another_liberal]

2. This may turn out to be one of those CIA sponsored coups . . .

With Odessa also breaking away the interim government may soon be hard-pressed to hold on to any part of the nation's former territory. This may turn out to be one of those CIA sponsored coups which just ends up failing spectacularly instead. Let's hope so, at least for the sake of Ukraine's people let's hope so.

[malaise]

45. That is precisely what is happening

but we in the West never learn.

[arely staircase]

92. let's hope Putin rots in hell. nt

[Jesus Malverde]

112. Someone on twitter said...

The Ukraine is like trying to make an aquarium out of fish soup.

[another_liberal]

121. That is deep . . .

At first it's funny, then it gets darker and deep.

[Jesus Malverde]

124. Pretty much captured the mess of multi-ethnic states when a strong central authority disappears.

Ukraine seems to be headed towards the fate of Yugoslavia at best, Libya at worst.

[Jesus Malverde]

123. Pretty much captured the mess of these multi-ethnic states when a strong central authority disappear

Ukraine seems to be headed towards the fate of Yugoslavia at best, Libya at worst.

[AverageJoe90]

166. I'm not so sure of that, TBH.

If anything at all, it may be the other way around: we can't discount the possibility that the Russians are actively manipulating the situation to try to gain an advantage, especially with all the extreme-right groups that suddenly appeared almost out of nowhere this January.

[sabrina 1]

16. Thanks. This is probably why NATO is now involved. They can't let the people decide

for themselves. Someone really, really needs to speed up the takeover of Ukraine by the IMF and World Bank. There must be huge amounts of money at stake.

Seems they are making the same mistakes they made in Syria, forgetting that the people while they may not be thrilled with their leaders, sure don't want outsiders coming in and taking over their country. It kind of puts things into a different perspective.

[jeff47]

30. You should probably bother to keep reading your own sources.

Turns out things were not quite as initially reported.

[malaise]

44. I watched the American born journalist on CNN tearing the host a new one

when describing what was going on.
When he said but you are American born - how do you feel about - she jumped doen his throat. When he said the Russians had troops on the border, she asked about NATO.
I almost felt sorry for him.

Saw this hand over on TV earlier this morning.

[socialist_n_TN]

3. Although still NOT free from the Russian imperialistic taint, THIS........

situation in eastern Ukraine is much closer to a popular uprising than the oligarchical inspired fascist uprising in western Ukraine. The people are taking control and the military is going over to the side of the people. At this stage in eastern Ukraine, the Russians are less of a fear than the fascists in western Ukraine are.

Now if the people in east Ukraine can throw off the yoke Russian imperialism as well as resist the west Ukraine fascism, we MIGHT have a situation where the people actually win.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. Popular uprisings don't look like this:

Nice framing, though.

[another_liberal]

6. However . . .

They do look like this:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. The people in this picture are the ones shielding the people in the first picture.

Clearly and for obvious reasons, I doubt either the Ukrainian Army or the Ukrainian government wants to see any type of bloodbath of the people in this picture. Such an event would clearly look horrible on the new government post-Maidan.

The problem being, the armed militants like the ones in the first picture are the guys occupying the buildings. And they look like they aren't going anywhere. And they are using the people like the ones you posted as human shields for protection, knowing the Ukrainians don't want a civilian bloodbath.

The question is, what to do with the militants who are the ones calling the shots? And there are no clear answers.

[another_liberal]

10. Damn it, I forgot the rules . . .

When pro-Western protesters seize government buildings and refuse to leave, they're exercising "Free Speech."

When pro-Russian protesters seize government buildings and refuse to leave, they acting as "terrorists."

Right?

[NuclearDem]

37. No, they're both wrong.

But the EU and the US haven't seized a portion of the Ukraine and aren't mobilizing military forces along the border looking for any reason to march in and take more.

Reason being very conveniently given by these demonstrators.

[malaise]

109. They just seized the Central Bank

Next they'll tell them who can be governor - these days they don't need much more than that.

Now devalue, deregulate and divest (as in privatize) and watch the debt rise.

[EX500rider]

82. Sure, 1st thing you ALWAYS do in a protest...

......go take a strategically useful airfield. lol

[joshcryer]

144. Who "seized government buildings" in Maiden?

The staging ground for Maiden was the Union building, which btw the pro-Russia people burned down.

I think when you pull a Bundy like that guy in Nevada and bring armed militas to a government building and take it over you're a terrorist.

[sabrina 1]

17. Of course they don't, which raises the question, what is the point of that photo?

I've been following this around the world, and it's clear that it is the PEOPLE who are not accepting of the coup installed government in Kiev

How do you feel about that government sending out tanks and bombers to stop the people from legally protesting in their own country? I recall you used support the 'right of the people' to protest' just weeks ago. So I'm wondering if you have changed your mind about that now that we are hearing from ALL the people of Ukraine, not just the few thousand, many led by neo-nazis in Kiev?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. "All of the people of Ukraine, not just the few thousand"

Do you seriously believe that the men occupying government buildings with AK-47s and grenade launchers (and apparently now, seized Ukrainian tanks) are simply "protesters"? Do you think that they represent the majority of Ukrainians? Do you even think they actually represent Ukrainians at all, given that they are flying the Russian flag and not the Ukrainian flag?

Wise up. There are several hundred of these armed militants occupying these structures. They've probably got a couple thousand unarmed civilian sympathizers around them who are effectively working as human shields for them. These people care nothing about Ukraine; they disdain Ukraine and they fly the flag of another country. Ethnic Russians are still quite a minority in Eastern Ukraine, and the mere fact that many ethnic Ukrainians in that region speak Russia does not automatically suppose that they wish to become Russians.

Meanwhile, the "neo-Nazi" "coup installed" government in Kiev of which you speak arguably has shown significant restraint in not creating a situation where the military is shooting protesters and civilians. If not for the nobility aspect of it, for the simple fact that they know shooting civilians would a) make them look like hypocrites after the events of Maidan and b) likely create cause for a full-scale Russian military invasion of eastern Ukraine, which Ukraine would likely be outmatched.

But the "few thousand" which you claim represented the Maidan protests actually was at least 600,000 Ukrainians strong. And that's using the most conservative estimates. And I'm talking just about the people who were physically there. There were millions more who shared their concerns.

But thanks for playing anyways.

[sabrina 1]

47. 'Seized tanks'?? Really? Have you read the world wide news reports on the defection of the Ukraine

troops? I haven't found a single source claiming they were 'seized' rather, see NPR reporting eg, a soldier, speaking for his troops has stated that 'we will NOT SHOOT OUR OWN PEOPLE'.

I know the facts don't make NATO and the Western Powers look particularly good, but facts are facts and RT is ONLY ONE of many sources reporting on the actual facts of this story.

Did you know that Ukraine is so broke they have been unable to feed and clothe and PAY their military personnel? This is not NEW KNEWS and anyone who has followed this country's 'progress' or lack thereof since the Orange Revolution could have predicted that trying to use Ukraine's troops, against their own people, was definitely NOT a good idea.

So now that they see the error if trying to get their military to fire on their own people, NATO has moved in. Again, very predictable.

Btw, what business do WE have there? Apparently most Americans, no offence by you appear to be among them, have zero knowledge of this country.

We had Congress okay billions of dollars to send there, even while we are being told 'we have nothing to do with what is going on there' while HERE IN THE US the Govt HAS NO MONEY to feed our own schoolchilden!!!

Who is going to benefit from our obvious interference (see released tapes of STate Dept personnel eg)?? How do the american people get a return on this 'investment' of millions of their tax dollars?

Btw, I would suggest you read multiple sources from around the globe before deciding on the 'facts' from our own Corporate Controlled Media. That's what I do, it helps me to be more informed on issues like this.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

58. "No offence by you appear to be among them, have zero knowledge of this country."

My Ukrainian mother and grandmother (RIP) just laughed at that one. Thanks.

By the way, do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Ukrainian military was sent to Ukraine to shoot civilians?

And why would orders directing the Ukrainian military to shoot civilians be remotely considered to be in the best interests of the Ukrainian government, knowing who sits across the border?

So of course the Ukrainian army didn't shoot civilians. Duh.

You are indeed a useful idiot.

[sabrina 1]

66. Well, end of conversation when someone resorts to personal insults. Most Americans have ZERO

knowledge of ANY of the countries we invade, the numbers of invaded countries increasing by the year. This is just the latest we are sticking our noses into, despite a majority of the people, as in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan (those who even knew who we were) Latin America, telling us they do not WANT us in their business.

My parents are from Europe, that doesn't make me an expert on anything, in fact it probably creates a bias when one's family comes from a country where perhaps they already have formed their own biases.

Better to have independent reporting on these countries which we are getting more of now that we have so many more news outlets and don't have to rely on the US media anymore, which proved itself to be totally unreliable when it backed the lies that led this country into war.

'Useful idiot', well I've been called much, much worse having spent time fighting off the war mongering Bush bots back in the old days when they dominated the internet.

Turns out it was THEY were the 'useful idiots', the Left was right, again. Some of them have actually had the grace to admit how foolish they were, although reluctantly.

If you thought seeing that old, shall I call it a 'compliment' now that it totally backfired on the name callers, would have any effect at all on this discussion, frankly it made me feel great, it reminded me of the old battles with Bush gang where WE turned out to be in the right, as we are now.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

78. Yes. I so love your "independent reporting" that you post here.

A good amount of it coming from Russian government owned and controlled RT.

But, hey, it's not like Russia would have any interest in Ukraine, right?

[sabrina 1]

80. I don't 'reportt' anything, I am not a reporter. I do correct wrong information if I see it.

You never answered the question regarding what reliable sources YOU rely on for YOUR 'reporting here?

RT is only ONE of dozens of sources I use to find out what is going in the world, and one of the more reliable as it appears to always be backed up by many other sources.

And it has become MORE Than clear over the years, that the LEAST relibable, and LEAST TRUSTED source IS the US MSM, corporate owned, corporate controlled, biased toward PROFIT as in the Ukraine, eg.

I see NO discussion on DU anymore since its best posters have moved on not interested in the Faux type commentary that has now become standard here.

I offered you an opportunity to DISCUSS the ISSUE here, you chose to fling insults at me and at the source without a single substantive comment about the actual issues. This is why people are fleeing this site, the Corporate media and going elsewhere for their news.

Iow, the propaganda we are subjected to here has had the OPPOSITE effect on thinking people. More and more are turning to other sources and deciding forthemselves what is reliable and what is not.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

83. The BBC has done some thorough reporting on the matter.

The Kyiv Post is independent (not government owned) and is quick to provide updates as they happen. Christopher Miller's twitter account is especially helpful. But I typically like to see if the information is confirmed by a western source before I post it, lest it be accused of having a "Ukrainian bias".

RT has a clear agenda towards Russian-friendly spin. You can see it by the fact they are still calling the armed militants in Eastern Ukraine "protesters" and "activists" and yet even the most peaceable of the Maidan demonstrators were labeled "rioters" by RT, and every reference to the Ukrainian interim government by RT refers to it as the "coup installed government."

[sabrina 1]

84. Western media has a clear bias in this story and have FAR FAR less reason to be involved there

at all. I have asked over and over again, WHY ARE WE THERE???

The BBC is not what it used to be after it was virtually taken over by the Warmongers in the Blair/Bush government. Perhaps you do not recall what happened to the Whistle Blower who had spoken to the BBC revealing the lies about the WMDs? What the UK oppressors in that government did to the reporters AND the Whistle blowers?

I have nothing from the BBC to day on this story, but have found multiple other sources CONFIRMING the defection of the Ukraine troops.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

85. What do you mean, "Why are we there?"

Who is "we"? Western media?

What is "there"? Ukraine?

Please explain.

[sabrina 1]

111. Explain?? Surely you are not denying the role the US played in the coup? Surely you are not

denying the billions of dollars approved by Congress for Ukraine??? We can't feed our own school children yet it is so important to fund this country which has zero to do with this country

Explain please why the US was involved in the pre coup planning. I will post a link to the leaks if you like.

And explain please why we, who claim to have no money for THIS country are sending billions to Ukraine/

Thanks, the American people would like to know where all this money came from and why it is being sent to a foreign country that we have zero right to be in.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

169. In conspiracy theories, the burden of proof is always on the person espousing the theory.

In this context, that being you.

And yes, claiming that the regime change in Ukraine came about not as the result of a populist revolution but rather a US backed "coup" is most definitely a conspiracy theory.

Subscribers to this conspiracy theory have more or less repeated the same facts over and over claiming it is smoking gun evidence of a US led coup:

1. Victoria Nuland gave a speech where she said over the past two decades, the US has given several billion dollars to various NGOs working in Ukraine
2. When visiting Ukraine, Nuland handed out cookies/sandwiches/pomposhok to some of the protesters on the Maidan.
3. A discussion between Nuland and Geoffrey Pratt was overheard where they discussed who they preferred to be in charge in Ukraine.

All of these can be spun to be devious machinations, but none of these--read either independently or together--provide any sort of solid proof that the United States played an active role in the events in Ukraine of late last year and early this year.

Forget the smoking gun; there's barely any smoke, let alone the gun.

None of what you conspiracy theorists claim can dispute the fact that:

1. Ukrainians were very upset at the demonstrable level of corruption in the Yanukovych government
2. Yanukovych's decision to embrace the Russians on their questionable aid offer upset Ukrainians for very logical historical reasons
3. At least 600,000 Ukrainians--and probably more--physically participated in the Maidan protests, while millions more sympathized with their cause
4. Protesters were further upset by Yanukovych's use of the notorious Berkut riot police to violently crack down on protesters
5. As the Maidan protests reached a fever pitch, Yanukovych pulled the ultimate Eric Cartman "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" and up and left Ukraine and went to Russia
6. Given that the Ukrainian Rada was still up and functioning, and not wanting the country to descend into anarchy and chaos, they chose an interim government to lead until elections for a permanent government could be held in May.
7. As it stands now, elections are still on schedule to take place in May.

Your whole "Why did we give money to Ukraine when they could have given it to us?" is totally irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether the change in power in Ukraine came about as a result of the a US involved "coup". So too is name-dropping "fascists" and "neo-nazis" which are merely a blatant appeal to emotion and scare tactic, but have nothing to do with that particular question.

You claim the United States has no right to "be in" Ukraine. Fine. The United States is not in Ukraine militarily, and never has been. We have no bases there. We have no troops there. The only Americans currently in Ukraine are there for either diplomatic, tourism or expatriate purposes.

So you're assuming facts not in evidence.

[sabrina 1]

178. So you admit that the US State Dept. not to mention two US Senators, were in Ukraine

Last edited Fri Apr 18, 2014, 12:12 AM - Edit history (1)

last December.

Thanks, that's what I said.

You also admit, which cannot be denied anyhow, that Nuland, so connected to the PNAC btw, was caught on tape discussing the future of a country, eg, who 'we' didn't want and 'we' did want placed in power after the coup. Coincidentally she got what 'we' wanted.

Thanks, now we're getting somewhere.

Back to my question. So what are WE doing in a country we have nothing to do with? Why did Ukraine become such a popular destination for US State Dept officias and US Senators last year? Is it a new popular resort area or something? Did McCain just decide to go on a vacation to Ukraine, and coincidentally State Dept officials with 'cookies' just decide to go vacation there around the same time?

Speaking of CTs! Lol, now there is one big CT. All of it was just a little vacation they ALL decided to take at the same time in that particular country. What a 'coincidence'.

McCain even posed for some vacation photos with the leader of the Neo-Nazi party!! How cute!

So again, WHAT ARE WE DOING THERE. You ARE admitting that we ARE THERE and have been there all along, with 'cookies'! How symbolic btw.

And now there is the head of the CIA, Brennan! He too apparently heard what a great vacation spot Ukraine has become and just decided to go on a tour himself. What is HE doing there I wonder??

Then back to those 'irrelevant' billions of US Tax Dollars, to use your description. What is that FOR?? Do vacations for US State Dept and elected officials in the apparently most popular vacation spot in the world, COST THAT MUCH? And why on earth would we, the tax payers, be paying for THEIR VACATIONS??

Omg, please, don't insult our intelligence any further.

Your little CT just doesn't make sense unfortunately. The truth is always easier. You don't have to try to explain away inconvenient FACTS.

The FACT is that the US has been deeply involved in the coup in Ukraine, our Tax Dollars which are told we DON'T have for children's school lunches here, billions of it, are now going to some country that we have ZERO right to be in.

So again, and we will keep asking, we will be asking our Reps in Congress, WHAT ARE WE DOING THERE HELPING TO TOPPLE a government. I don't care how bad it was, that is the business of the people there.

And WHY is OUR money being invested in this country, for whom??? Who gets to benefit from this latest 'investment' of our money?? We sure didn't benefit from any of the other war mongering investments. In fact they ran up a two trillion dollar deficit and are now trying to get US to off that gambling debt.

You need to get out and start talking to ordinary people here in the US. This isn't 2003. We are all much better educated than we were then, and the people want to know why their money is being spent without their permission and agreement to obviously enrich SOMEONE, but certainly not the American people.

Any time you want to see the 'vacation' photos of our US Senators posing with the Neo Nazi leaders in Kiev, or listen to Nuland plotting the future of a country she doesn't belong to, I'll be more than happy to oblige.

Thanks for the CT. It WAS cute. But face it, it really did sound like the fairy tale it is.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

179. I've put forward is the generally accepted narrative. You are claiming the conspiracy theory.

The fact is, members of Congress travel to foreign nations all the time, including in their official capacities. Not just Ukraine, but to countries all over the world. For example:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Rep-Gabbard-in-congressional-delegation-to-Asia-5411082.php
http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/25033490/us-rep-ron-barber-returns-from-trip-to-afghanistan
http://armenianow.com/genocide/53642/armenia_house_foreign_affairs_committee_chairman_ed_royce_tsitsernakaberd_visit_genocide


The fact that you are touting the fact that members of Congress or the State Department traveled to a foreign country as if it is so unheard of and so unexpected is totally out of line with reality. It happens all the time, and the fact that it happens isn't proof positive that the US is plotting a secret coup in that country.

Also out of line with reality is your claim that the fact that the US has given money to NGOs in Ukraine means that we were plotting a coup in Ukraine. Again, it's not all that uncommon, whether you like it or not. Just for example:

http://odishasuntimes.com/45099/3-4-mn-us-aid-ngos-post-phailin-recovery-work-odisha/

So Nuland talked about who she preferred to be in power in Ukraine. Great. That alone carries as much weight as fans of an NFL team talking about who they want to pick in the draft, or fans of a major league baseball team talking about who their team should sign as a free agent. The fact that someone talks about something doesn't necessarily mean they actually have the power to affect actual action in a place. Hell, we here at DU talk about people we wish to be in power all the time.

You keep on throwing red herrings out there, like "Why are they spending money there and not here?" or the whole "neo-Nazi" canard. None of those questions or issues have anything to do with proving that the recent change in power in Ukraine was a US sponsored coup.

Proof of US involvement in a Ukrainian "coup" would be to the effect of proof that protesters were paid off to be in Maidan and cause trouble (pretty hard, given that there were 600,000 of them there.) Proof would be that US special forces were in the country in the run-up to the change in power. Proof would be that the US somehow kidnapped Yanukovych and forced him against his will to leave the country, something not even Yanukovych claims to be the case.

You've given none of that proof.

What you're doing is classic deflection. Suddenly I'm the one spouting the conspiracy theory (despite the fact that what I've put forward are things that have been observed to actually be the case) and what you claim to be the truth because you want it to be the truth is in fact the truth. And that's just not the case.

Show me the facts. Not just innuendos and irrelevant red herrings, but actual facts.

[sabrina 1]

180. Well, when you wrongfully attribute words to someone whose words are right in front of you

it doesn't do much for the rest of what you are 'putting forth'.

Let me first correct the false statements you just attributed to me:

The fact that you are touting the fact that members of Congress or the State Department traveled to a foreign country as if it is so unheard of and so unexpected is totally out of line with reality. It happens all the time, and the fact that it happens isn't proof positive that the US is plotting a secret coup in that country.

Also out of line with reality is your claim that the fact that the US has given money to NGOs in Ukraine means that we were plotting a coup in Ukraine. Again, it's not all that uncommon, whether you like it or not. Just for example:

1. I said Members of Congress AND the State Department. Not OR .... Both, from the State Dept AND from Congress.

Oh yes they DO travel to 'foreign countries' all the time. Eg, they were traveling to several of the other nations we eventually invaded for years.

What a coincidence that all these US Officials just wandered into the latest country we claim to have 'interests' in months before the coup, and how lucky for us they placed OUR guy in power. We have been VERY lucky with the 'coincidences' that have occurred over the past few decades regarding this sort of thing. VERY LUCKY indeed!

2.I never mentioned NGOs so have no idea where you got that from. But since you mentioned it, it is well known now that this IS a method used, though not the only one, to funnel US Tax Dollars to certain groups in different parts of the world. The reason why US NGOs have become suspect in many of the countries in which the Western powers are interfering.

As for this:

You keep on throwing red herrings out there, like "Why are they spending money there and not here?" or the whole "neo-Nazi" canard. None of those questions or issues have anything to do with proving that the recent change in power in Ukraine was a US sponsored coup.

So we call Congress approving five Billion Tax Dollars for Ukraine, with more to come we are told, 'a red herring' now. Really? Did I imagine that Congress approved billions of our tax dollars for a foreign country whose economy is tanking more rapidly every day and which we will, as have in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere be forced to foot the bill for so the Global Investors and Defense Contractors can profit from our money??

You call it a red herring if you like, I know what most Americans are calling it.

'The whole Neo Nazi 'canard'??

McCain Meets with Oleh Tyahnybok in Ukraine



U.S. Senator John McCain, center, speaks as Democratic senator from the state of Connecticut, Chris Murphy, second left, and Opposition leader Oleh Tyahnybok, right, stand around him during a Pro-European Union rally in Independence Square in Kiev, Ukraine, Sunday, Dec. 15, 2013.

Mmm, so this is called a 'canard'. Okay, call it whatever you want to call it ....

Nowadays Svoboda (which means freedom in Ukrainian) is one of those reconstructed modern European far right parties — it is aligned with the British National Party and the French National Front, for example — and it has gained some kind of electoral legitimacy, winning 10 percent of the seats in Ukraine's parliament in 2010.

However, the party's past is seriously murky. When it was founded in 1995, the party called itself the Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), and it had a swastika-like logo.

In summary, here is your interpretation of the known facts so far:

1. Congressional approval of billions of dollars for Ukraine = Red Herring
2. Two US Senators posing for photos with the leader of Ukraine's far right Neo Nazi Party = 'A Canard'
3. US State Dept. Officials AND US Senators visiting Ukraine months before the Kiev Coup = 'A Coincidence'.

And who is calling your interpretation of the facts 'the accepted narrative'. I accept FACTS, not someone's 'narrative of the facts'. That is what we call 'an attempt to make the facts look like something other than the facts'. Iow, you have done nothing to change the facts with what you call the 'acceptive narrative'. The word 'narrative' btw = 'story telling'.

We don't need story telling when we have the facts as I have just demonstrated. McCain was given an opportunity to explain his visit with these people, but so far has declined to do so. Therefore the only facts we have are those I just presented.


As Shakespeare said about the use of words: 'what's in a name, a Rose by any other name would smell as sweet'. or in today's vernacular 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it IS a duck' we have to assume, until we have something to prove that we really did NOT see and hear what we thought we saw and heard, these are the facts that we have.

You can call these FACTS whatever you want, it won't change the FACTS.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

182. You're talking, putting words down, but you haven't proven a single thing.

State Department and Congress members, State Department or Congress members....none of that conclusively proves a single thing.

What you have been claiming was rated "Pants on Fire" by Politifact recently. Read for yourself:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/

What you've been claiming is that one day Congress up and voted $5 billion to give to Ukraine in order to foment regime change against the Yanukovych administration. That simply isn't the case. That figure represents spending over a 20 year period, long before Yanukovych was ever in office.

Yes, I'll call what I said a narrative. However, it is a narrative supported by observable facts. Could what you've claimed be somewhere within the realm of possibility? Sure....most anything is possible, technically speaking. Is it likely? No....it is highly, highly unlikely. Have you shown any facts that actually rise to the level beyond speculation and innuendo? No, you have not.

You claim to accept facts. But you haven't given me any real facts of a US sponsored "coup". Where is the actual evidence that the US played a direct role in forcibly removing Yanukoych from power against his will? Don't give me the $5 billion figure, don't give me McCain visiting Ukraine, don't give me the cookie story, don't give me talk about Svoboda (which has nothing to do with anything)...give me concrete, hard evidence.

[NuclearDem]

110. Why the hell is Putin there?

What the hell gives Putin the right to enforce a Russian version of the Monroe Doctrine? If Putin helped stage an overthrow of Mexico, we would still have no right in annexing the Baja or demanding Mexico be split into different countries.

Gods, either be universally anti-imperialism or not.

[sabrina 1]

113. What the hell gives US the right to enforce our will, with our WMDs on Iraq, on Afghanistan,

on Somalia, on Iran, on Syria, on Libya, and now on Ukraine. You are aware that the US backed the coup in Honduras right? Backed the coup in Venezuela and is still trying to destabilize Latin American democracies. We are EVERYWHERE. Why?

Know how many countries in Africa we are in?

Why are we supporting Dictators, like Karamov in Uzbekistan, WITH TAX DOLLARS?

Why are we supporting the Dictatorship in Bahrain, where the people are desperately trying to gain SOME rights?

Why are we such buddies with the homophobic givernments of Saudi Arabia and Uganda to name but a few of our 'allies'?

Why are BILLIONS, maybe into the trillions now, of our TAX DOLLARS going to support the destabilization of elected governments in various continents around the globe?

Why, you ask, is Putin 'in' Ukraine? Maybe you should google a little history of that country and Russia to get your answer. Maybe because a large proportion of the people there ARE Russian??? Are they American?? Is Putin in Iraq? Airc, Russia and China refused to join the 'Coalition of Bush's Willing'.

Maybe you are asking the WRONG questions. Did you support our invasions under Bush?? If so, then your position now would at least be consistent.

Explain please WHY the US is IN Ukraine when clearly the people there do not want outside interference. Why is the IMF in Ukraine, why are WE sending BILLIONS to Ukraine? Got any answers? Enquiring minds would like SOME answers. And WHO will benefit from our multi Billion Tax Dollar investment in Ukraine?? I would love to know because the American people surely did not benefit from the billions 'invested' in Iraq. Halliburton of course did. Who will benefit from this latest investment?

And again, WHY is the US 'in' Ukraine?

[NuclearDem]

118. What the fuck are you talking about?

This is exactly what I was talking about. Deflect from legitimate criticism of Russian imperialism by pointing out American imperialism. Is it truly that incomprehensible to you that both are wrong?

No, I don't support the US propping up dictatorial regimes around the world, or wars of aggression, or campaigns based on trumped up pretext. I also don't support the same being done by the EU, Russia, China, or any other power.

I don't jump through fucking hoops to excuse one's while virulently criticizing another's, which is exactly what you've been doing!

And before lecturing me on the history of Ukraine, please do some reading yourself on the utter brutality and purging of the Ukrainian identity during the Soviet era. It is absolutely zero surprise that former SSR's like Ukraine and my grandparents' homeland have large Russian minorities. Imperialist occupations tend to do that.

So don't dare presume what I stand for on these issues. I actually oppose imperialist tendencies no matter the instigator. Neither the West nor Russia have any business inserting themselves in Ukraine's affairs.

Stop with the false dichotomy bullshit! Opposing Russian involvement is not the same as supporting Western involvement.

[sabrina 1]

125. What is false about anything in my post?? Please stop trying to dismiss the role of the Western

Imperial powers in countries across the globe. NO ONE is going to allow us to do that. We have ZERO moral authority anymore, so whine all you want about other countries, but expect, as we see now on a regular basis, our whining totally dismissed while the world points out what I just did, see China, Russia, Latin America, African nations, all pointing several fingers back at us.


Why? Because we CELEBRATE our War and Wall St. Criminals. We protect them from prosecution, we dismiss all efforts from their victims to try to get some kind of justice, and many of those VICTIMS are from countries in Europe, in Canada, the ME, all over the world we KIDNAPPED citizens and tortured them in our detention centers, men WOMEN and CHILDREN.

If YOU think that anyone around the globe is going to forget all this so YOU can enjoy pointing fingers elsewhere, I am doing you the favor of presenting you with what you will hear in return.

When WE decided to move forward from War and Wall St crimes, we lost ALL rights to point fingers ANYWHERE.

We killed over one million people over the past decade, maybe more, tortured and maimed untold numbers of others. Do you SERIOUSLY think all that has been forgotten? Did you HEAR what the protesters from the Arab Spring had to say about the US interfering in THEIR revolutions?

Maybe here in the insulated US people actually do believe we can hide away our own crimes then have the arrogance to attack others for ANYTHING, but if that is the case they have not been READING what CHina and other countries have said to us when we dared to point fingers their way.

THAT IS A FACT! Sorry if you refuse to accept it. Until WE show the world that we believe in Human Rights and punish our own war criminals, we have no moral authority and no business interfering in any more countries. Facts are inconvenient, for some. But for those who love this country they are ESSENTIAL if it is ever to have its own democracy restored.

[840high]

130. We meddle everywhere.

[840high]

129. Thank you.

[truedelphi]

90. In complex situations like what is going on

In Crimea and the Ukraine, the American media will report things inaccurately.

I doubt I have to explain to you to be on the alert for inconsistencies, and double standards, and Internal Contradictions.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

79. Duck Dynasty, nyet? nt

[Jesus Malverde]

93. Popular uprising in Ukraine vs Syria

Same story different narrative.

Why do you keep promoting the McCain and Cheney agenda?

[joshcryer]

139. Only difference between Syria and Ukraine is Syria shot back.

Ukraine is being very level headed here.

[another_liberal]

5. At this point . . .

I believe at this point in a very dangerous situation, the Russians would be happy to settle for a group of peaceful, non-aligned and independent States (former regions of Ukraine) as a stable buffer on their western border.

I hope that is how this settles out.

[arely staircase]

104. because it is totally there right to carve up another country nt

[joshcryer]

115. Are you kidding me?

[LeftyMom]

7. Good lord, can people stop posting links to Russia Today as if they were reliable on this issue?

[another_liberal]

11. Russia Today is not only extremely reliable . . .

They have also broken several important stories lately concerning events in Ukraine.

You should open your mind to other points of view. Rejecting a source just because you don't like the news they report is really self-defeating.

[arely staircase]

48. they are reliably full of shit

That is why the are banned from LBN. Or maybe Skinner was bribed with cookies.

[sabrina 1]

51. The Corporate Media IS allowed in LBN, which is why I do not use LBN

anymore.

Or are you saying that the Corporate Controlled media is reliable?? What sources do you READ as 'reliable sources'.

Btw, RT is an excellent source of International News, award winning reporting and backed for the most part on its news reporting, as with this story, by most of the world's credible media.

Al Jazeera was banned fro right wing blogs back in the Bush years. Did you agree with them that they were 'unreliable'? I didn't, I began DONATING to them and the Left of course generally considered them to be extremely reliable just as most of the Left views RT today, except for a few.

So, what is incorrect about the information in this OP?

Warning, I have, as I always do, already double checked the information in other news media, so I do know the answer in advance.

You, however, have not addressed the information in the OP so I am asking what you believe is wrong about it?

And please give us a list of 'reliable sources' we can 'trust'. Thank you.

[arely staircase]

54. yes. the dallas morning news is a real news source

As well as corporately owned. So are many others.

[sabrina 1]

133. Well, I will have to look for the Dallas Mornng News, never heard of it before.

I don't live in Dallas. And if there are so many others, why do I have such a hard time getting a list from those who have now trashed nearly every credible Journalist who USED to be considered credible right here on DU, up to and including people like Amy Goodman.

NPR has reported on this story also. So far they are reporting the defection of Ukraine troops with a promise to look further into the story. Do you consider NPR to be a credible source?

[kwassa]

116. .

[cthulu2016]

13. RT isn't allowed in Breaking News, so we here in GD get blasted with it

[SidDithers]

71. From the same poster...

over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

164. Who is 'we'?? The Corporate Media, so totally discredited, is allowed in LBN, and WE are blasted

with their corporate controlled garbage.

Which is why I don't use LBN as a credible source of news anymore. If you don't like something, do what I do, trash it, as I have re LBN so I don't have to be bombarded with Corporate Media propaganda.

I prefer actual news. Which I get from RT, Al Jazeera, several African news sources, anything BUT the Western Corporate Media which lied us into war in Iraq working for the Bush administration.

I have not complained about LBN bombarding us with Corporate Media propaganda, I simply don't read it.

If others want to read that trash that is their choice, I'm not going to try to stop them.

You can do the same, but apparently you would like to prevent the rest of us from reading what we choose to read??? Why?

[War Horse]

15. Thank you

I see that DU has a "Euromaidan are neo nazis"/trust the Kremlin contingent. Russia Today as a reliable source... Sure. "We report, you decide".

While the the Ukrainian interim govt. is far from perfect - faaar from it, the onus here is on Putin and the Kremlin.

[sabrina 1]

18. Why? They are one of the more reliable news organizations on world affairs. Surely you have no

objection to people reading ALL available sources on stories as important as this. What I have found is that RT is reporting facts that are corroborated by most of the credible news media around the world. And that it is the MSM that appears to out of sync with the rest of the world's news media.

See link above to The Guardian eg, corroborating RT's reporting on the defection of the Ukraine troops.

Face it, our media is totally unreliable on foreign affairs and has been for more than a decade now.

Who do you recommend, considering we KNOW how unreliable our own media is, that we look to for news??

[polly7]

20. The elephant in the room ...

NATO’s eastward creep and impending expansion to Russia’s borders - something never mentioned in Western media, but which, obviously, plays a huge role in the West's actions towards all of this.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/clash-crimea-western-expansion-ukraine-fascists

But it worked so well for Libya. Denial that there were millions of people there who did not want the horrors they were subjected to, complete support for a brutal NATO intervention and the atrocities committed, based on many, many lies. Being blind to anything but western propaganda allows people to dismiss the suffering of all those who have to pay for yet another glorious gov't overthrow. Those people just don't exist.

[sabrina 1]

23. Whenever I see anyone attack the messenger while ignoring the message, I wonder

what they are afraid of. Eg, if RT is WRONG in their reporting, the correct way to discredit them would be to post something from credible sources that proves them wrong. But whenever I ask for such credible counter reporting, I get NOTHING. Whenever I ask, each time yet another source, be it RT or Amy Goodman or whoever is not touting the Western Powers line, I get NOTHING.

I KNOW they cannot post links to our own totally discredited Corporate Media on any significant story. But I do wonder and have repeatedly asked, what sources DO they believe are credible? We've seen people like Thom Hartmann, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges, Matt Taibbi, the list is long and grows each day, slammed, right here on DU. So I'm truly curious as to who they consider credible, but can't get an answer going on months now.

[polly7]

28. I've noticed that.

Basically, crickets.

But just today I was told this, of Andre Vltchek's first-hand account of his travels and conversations with Ukrainian people - a http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4828857

Voices of Ukraine: “Kiev, people are not cattle”

by Andre Vltchek / April 12th, 2014

I doubt where the official numbers come from, those that say that Ukraine is evenly divided between those who support the West, and those who feel their identity is closely linked with Russia.

Maybe this might be the case in western Ukraine, in Lvov, or even in the capital, Kiev. But western Ukraine has only a few key cities. The majority of people in this country of around 44 million are concentrated in the south, east and southeast, around the enormous industrial and mining centers of Donetsk, Dnepropetrovsk and Krivoi Rog.

There is Odessa in the south, and Kharkov, “the second capital,” in the east. And people in all those parts of the country mainly speak Russian. And they see, what has recently happened in Kiev as an unceremonious coup, orchestrated and supported by the West.

Collapse

The car is negotiating a bumpy four-lane highway between Kiev and Odessa. There are three of us on board – my translator, Dmitry from the Liva.com site, a driver and me. Having left Kiev in the morning, we are literally flying at 160 kilometers an hour toward Odessa.....

http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/04/voices-of-ukraine-kiev-people-are-not-cattle/

I researched him a bit before posting that, as I always do,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Vltchek

I'm not completely sure why journalists and those who've been actively involved in these situations are discounted purely based upon who publishes their articles, and I can't imagine limiting myself to western sources who have a vested interest in publishing only what their corporate rulers allow. Why even bother pretending an interest in any of it?

[jeff47]

34. Seriously?

I'm not completely sure why journalists and those who've been actively involved in these situations are discounted purely based upon who publishes their articles, and I can't imagine limiting myself to western sources who have a vested interest in publishing only what their corporate rulers allow.

Are you utterly unable to see the massive contradiction in these two phrases?

The part where you discount stories based upon who publishes their articles.

[polly7]

35. Very serious.

I read articles from all sources, why on earth would I want to limit myself to exclude any article because of who's published it when I want to understand as much as possible?

[jeff47]

74. Apparently quoting you doesn't get you to think about what you are saying.

Let's try that again.

I can't imagine limiting myself to western sources who have a vested interest in publishing only what their corporate rulers allow.

Because the article is published by western sources, you can completely discount what they are saying. They only publish what their corporate rulers allow.

I'm not completely sure why journalists and those who've been actively involved in these situations are discounted purely based upon who publishes their articles

It is a terrible idea to completely discount what western sources are saying just because they come from western sources.

You're either doing a terrible job of explaining what you are trying to say, or you're doing exactly what you claim is bad.

[polly7]

99. Seriously, those of us on this thread wondering how anyone can possibly feel they're

getting the whole story by depending on western media aren't alone.

"Indeed, in my four-plus decades in journalism, I have never seen a more thoroughly biased and misleading performance by the major U.S. news media. Even during the days of Ronald Reagan – when much of the government’s modern propaganda structure was created – there was more independence in major news outlets. There were media stampedes off the reality cliff during George H.W. Bush’s Persian Gulf War and George W. Bush’s Iraq War, both of which were marked by demonstrably false claims that were readily swallowed by the big U.S. news outlets.

But there is something utterly Orwellian in the current coverage of the Ukraine crisis, including accusing others of “propaganda” when their accounts – though surely not perfect – are much more honest and more accurate than what the U.S. press corps has been producing."

Robert Parry, Ukraine, Through the US Looking Glass, April 16, 2014

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/16-6

Similar comments to the article above are literally everywhere on the web. People around the world aren't stupid, we've seen this all too many times.

[jeff47]

146. I'm wondering how you can keep avoiding reading

My post has nothing to do with Ukraine. It is the fact that you contradict yourself within a single sentence. Constantly going back to Ukraine doesn't change that.

[sabrina 1]

95. Very serious comment from Polly also backed up by so many credible journalists here and elsewhere.

My question is are you seriously claiming we ought to trust the Corporate Media after all we learned during the Bush years, with ANY story that involves US Foreign policy? You must realize how low on the scale of World Media the US ranks around the globe.

Frankly, all the MSM does is repeat the neocon/neoliberal propaganda they have been doing since taken over by six Corporations.

Their ratings now are so low that it is clear the world has simply tuned them out.

[jeff47]

148. Quick!!! Change the subject again!!!

My question is are you seriously claiming we ought to trust the Corporate Media

No. And you really need to learn how to read if that is what you took from the post.

Polly made two claims:
1) You should never reject a story just because of where it comes from.
2) You should always reject a story that comes from western media.

Those two statements are utterly contradictory. The fact that you like both of them does not mean they are not contradictory.

[polly7]

151. I answered you up thread.

Wtf are you making up this crap for?

I never said that at all.

[jeff47]

153. And I already replied to you upthread.

I never said that at all.

I quoted you. Twice.

It's upthread, where you replied. Then you decided to reply in two other places, demonstrating just how carefully you do read things.

[polly7]

156. LOL

It was a decent try on twisting what I did actually say, I'll give you that.

[sabrina 1]

155. You should not reject a story from any source until you know, as we do re the Corporate

Media that they have proven themselves to be unreliable. I understood her point, sorry you didn't.

WE KNOW that the Western Corporate Owned Media has been Proven to lie when told to so by our government. There is NO DOUBT about that.

I'm sure before we learned the facts revealed about the lies that got us into the Iraq War many of us, including Polly DID believe them. But to do now after all we have learned, would be absolutely ridiculous. They are generally viewed as unreliable everywhere.

But other sources like RT eg, have not been proven to be lying when reporting on the news. Until they are, Polly is correct, they or any other source who so far has been pretty reliable, should not be rejected simply because of who is funding them. We know that almost all media is funded by some entity or another. Including not very reputable entities, Qatar eg, yet the Reporters at Al Jazeera were able to report the facts without interference, until the Libya debacle when, we now know, they were influenced by management. That was unfortunate, but we don't blame the reporters for that.

[polly7]

157. Yeah ....

he completely turned what I said upside down.

Gave me a headache just trying to figure out what he was going on about.

[sabrina 1]

161. Lol, but the urge to smear any source, and we know how many credible sources have been tossed

under the bus so far, that dares to present actual news rather than the usual biased propaganda we get from the Corporate Media, trumps logic.

It could give one a massive headache if they had not experienced it all before, as I have. I feel a sense of deja vu lately. It all brings me back to my, admittedly massochistic, days arguing with Bush supporters over news sources like Al Jazeera where airc, I was called a 'traitor' a 'supporter of terrorists' etc etc because I insisted on supporting those reporters from Al Jazeera who were bringing us real news when our own Corporate Media was disseminating war propaganda.

It was pretty unnerving to be honest, to see the total denial of facts, the willingness to smear without any willingness to admit that maybe we were BEING LIED TO by our own media. The sheer mindlessness of it all was stunning. And foolishly I thought at that time, that the 'left' would never sink to that level of denial.

RT is an excellent source of world news, and no amount of denial will change that.

It could be that we are so starved of real news here in this country since corporations took over our media, that any news outlet that even makes some effort to report actual news around the world, that allows Liberal Voices to speak freely, like Chris Hedges eg, or Thom Harmann, seems like a breath of fresh air.

I don't know, all I know is that when I watch other world news, I see NEWS, not 'infotainment', not what Miley Cyrus is doing today, not what a Republican said about a Democrat or vice versa.

I notice that when I ask for 'reliable sources' I never get any. Well, that's not fair, I did get one, the Dallas Daily News to be completely accurate. I haven't checked it out yet, so I can't say.

So where are THEY getting THEIR news? They won't say so I will continue to ignore LBN where the Corporate Media is considered 'legitimate' and RT is not, because I don't see the point of wasting time on reading what the Corporation Controlled Media has to say when we already know what to expect from them. Not to mention that there are NO INVESTIGATIVE journalists left in this country.

[polly7]

162. I was told I wanted to have Saddam's babies!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

I still can't get over how much absolute rage even mentioning Al Jazeera prompted - I got death threats as well! Those were the days ..... except, they seem to be back.

It's absolutely baffling to me that, despite knowing what we had to go through to get to the truth in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, just in recent memory, people are so adverse to sources that host the most credible journalists (that western media seems to be purposefully avoiding.)


I wish they'd give up a list of which sources are legitimate too.

[polly7]

150. I never said I discounted anything based upon who published it.

I said, I don't limit myself to western media, (as I've learned that when it comes to information on pretty much anything of importance, much of it is regulated by it's corporate owners, just as I don't limit myself to articles from any other media source, for that, and other reasons.) I try to read everything before I make up my mind on what's believable, to me.

Where exactly did I say I discount sources based upon who publishes their articles? My eyes and memory must be going as I can't see it anywhere, and I definitely have never thought of doing it.

This thread, however, is full of posters absolutely doing what you're stating.

[jeff47]

152. I. Quoted. You.

Where exactly did I say I discount stories based upon who publishes their articles?

For fuck sake, I QUOTED YOU. TWICE

If you're going to claim such a superior literacy, you should probably have noticed that minor fucking detail.

[polly7]

154. And here is my fucking quote:

I'm not completely sure why journalists and those who've been actively involved in these situations are discounted purely based upon who publishes their articles, and I can't imagine limiting myself to western sources who have a vested interest in publishing only what their corporate rulers allow.

Now, point out where I said I discount stories based upon who publishes their articles?

You can't, because I didn't say it. I don't 'limit myself to western media' does not equal 'I discount anything from western media'.

'claimed superiour literacy?' Where? When?

[jeff47]

171. You mean repeat myself again?

Why, exactly?

You went from "Oh, I don't see it anywhere" stupidity to "oh, point it out". How 'bout you bother actually reading the posts to begin with? For someone who insists that they read everything, you do an awful lot of not reading.

But fine, we can give it one more try:

In the first clause, you claim you should not discount a story purely based upon who publishes that story.
In the second clause, you claim you should discount a story purely based upon who publishes that story.

Your sentence is 100% contradictory. At first, I thought you may have just phrased it inartfully. But given your responses, it's abundantly clear that isn't the case. If you didn't mean to contradict yourself, you wouldn't have worked so hard at ignoring the contradiction.

[polly7]

175. It's not hard work at all, I thought you'd probably just accidentally

misinterpreted what I said and didn't bother with it.

Turns out it was a pathetic attempt to twist it into something else.

What's hard about replying to lies?

I said what I said, and meant what I meant. No skin off my ass if you have some huge need to spin it.

And point out where I said any of this:

You went from "Oh, I don't see it anywhere" stupidity to "oh, point it out". How 'bout you bother actually reading the posts to begin with? For someone who insists that they read everything, you do an awful lot of not reading. - can't fucking stand liars. It's no wonder you have such a problem with journalists that tell the truth.

[sabrina 1]

36. It's a tactic, one that is now so obvious, it has zero impact. Great links btw. The truth is that

most of those who immediately attack the messenger, and there are so many now to attack unfortunately for them, probably know NOTHING about the history of the countries we are getting ready to attack. So it's all just propaganda.

But I will continue to ask them for alternatives to all the sources they now have to slam until I get an answer. But I'm not hopeful. We saw this during the Bush years also, with Al Jazeera. The Right constantly attacking that wonderful (back then) news source that had reporters on the ground, as RT does now, giving us some truth about what our lying leaders were actually doing in the war zones they created and had worked hard to only allow 'embedded' reporters to cover.

I wonder how the 'left' would have dealt with Al Jazeera had it not been a Republican in the WH. Back then I was naive enough to think WE cared only about the facts and would always support all reporting of those facts.

Now I am several years older and wiser and have learned something I would rather not have learned, the extreme partisanship we thought only existed on the Right, does not, it is the secret weapon of governments everywhere to get support for wrong policies.

I will continue to watch ANY news outlet that THEY are smearing. Because that is what I did during the Bush years. If the partisan bushbots hated it, I knew I needed to go read it.

Thankfully we have way more sources now than we did back then so it is getting harder and harder for the PTBs to cover up the facts. That is evident in the desperate, feeble attacks on just about everyone at this point.

[polly7]

38. I remember how, when simply revealing a source was from Al Jazeera,

I was called a Hussein lover, terrorist supporter and the ugliest things imaginable (not here). But it turned out, Al Jazeera was right on most of its reporting. Sadly, I agree that it's not just right-wing efforts to limit knowledge for these struggles and events ... but I've believed that for a long, long time.

[jeff47]

31. Do you demand such posts when someone says Fox News is wrong?

No? Huh. Almost like you're backing one media source because you like their story.

RT is fine on other subjects. On Russia and Ukraine, they are Fox News.

Want a link that destroys their reporting? Go look at the first reply in this thread. Yes, it was posted in support of RT, but it turns out the slightest digging found RT was lying. Again.

[sabrina 1]

55. Huh? I don't and never have watched Faux, the danger of becoming physically ill

watching all the Right Wing war mongering there was too great and no, there is ZERO comparison between right wing morons, like Hannity, and Chris Hedges, Amy Goodman, Reporters on RT like educated women such as Abby Martin who is totally supportive of Liberal Policies and FREE TO EXPRESS THEM on RT. Your 'faux' comparison is a total failure, unless you don't LIKE Left views of course.

RT commenters, mostly have that old 'liberal bias' and demonstrated and exposed brilliantly the Faux 'news' liars time and time again.

Where the hell did you come up with that comparison, lol, it could NOT be more incorrect if it tried.

I am more than willing btw, to provide you with some fun RT had with Faux 'reporters'. Too bad our Corporate Media was always too afraid to expose them. I have literally stood up and applauded as I watched RT's intelligent young women reporters expose the ignorance of Murdoch's gang of liars.

[jeff47]

76. Quick!!! Switch Subjects!!!!!!

"RT must be correct in all things because I like a few reporters!!!!!"

Nevermind that you've been directed to coverage that demonstrates RT is lying. They employ some other reporters on other subjects, so these reporters can't be lying about this subject!

[sabrina 1]

81. Still trying to avoid discussing the actual issues, still unwilling to point out where the

information in the OP is wrong?

Still refusing to view all the other sources available on this issue, NPR, the Guardian, even the old Daily Mail, that support the reporting in the OP.

I have never been directed to anything from the 'bash Liberal News Sources' contingency that proves anything from those sources to be wrong.

It' all just the same all 'bash Al Jazeera' nonsense from the right, now at the left, coming no doubt from the same old Think Tanks, and just as ineffective as it always some.

Again, you never said, but what are the Credible News Sources YOU have have faith in??? I keep acting this question from those who appear to despise all Liberal sources, but cannot get an answer for some reason.

Ukraine troops HAVE defected btw, and we don't need RT for that information.

The reason has been made obvious How about you provide some of your sources to explain WHY Ukraine Troops are defecting?

[jeff47]

86. I've pointed it out repeatedly.

Start with Reply #1 in this very thread. I've already directed you to it twice.

Then there's Reply #25 in this very thread. I've already direct you to it twice as well.

Yet you keep claiming there's nothing showing the OP is wrong. And that you're only interested in the discussion in this thread. That's a rather odd claim, considering you apparently aren't reading the links posted in this thread.

You have a story. You like it. So it must be true.

Still refusing to view all the other sources available on this issue, NPR, the Guardian, even the old Daily Mail, that support the reporting in the OP.

You are lying. These sources do not back the OP. There was no defection.

I have never been directed to anything from the 'bash Liberal News Sources' contingency that proves anything from those sources to be wrong.

You are lying. I have pointed this out to you multiple times in this thread. You stopped replying in the other sub-threads when shown that you were wrong.

For example, post #75 in this very thread.

Again, you never said, but what are the Credible News Sources YOU have have faith in??? I keep acting this question from those who appear to despise all Liberal sources, but cannot get an answer for some reason.

You are lying. I've pointed you to sources multiple times in this thread.

Ukraine troops HAVE defected btw, and we don't need RT for that information.

Actually, we do need RT for that lie. Because it didn't happen. Ukrainian troops refused to run over or shoot civilians, so they abandoned their APCs. They did not defect, they started walking back to their bases.

Who says so? Well, there's the Guardian link in reply #1 that you have been directed to multiple times. There's also Reuters, there's NY Times, there's a French media source in reply #25 that you have been directed to multiple times.

I get it. You like the anti-NATO story RT is telling. Problem is that story is not true, no matter how much you like it.

[sabrina 1]

96. I have FACTS. The deja vu is stunning. I recall having these almost identical conversations re Al

Jazeera back when the bush contingency was bashing them also.

NPR, The Guardian are reporting this same story. Why does it matter so much to you that Ukraine troops would be deserting AFTER being called out to attack THEIR OWN PEOPLE. It is simply LOGICAL even if we didn't have the actual news reports, video, interviews etc??

It's never a good thing to be on the wrong side of history.

We have no business there. Our TAX DOLLARS are being sent to Ukraine for WHAT???

What ARE we doing there?? Why are YOU attempting to defend the US presence in Ukraine?? I don't get it.

This is the business of THAT COUNTRY. NOT the IMF, the World Bank. Surely you are not supporting the IMF and the The World Bank enslaving yet another country?

Too many sources now reporting that Ukraine troops are defecting from the coup appointed government in Ukraine. Simply cannot be denied anymore.

[cthulu2016]

101. Sabrina, you are MISTAKEN. Click a link for any of

what you think are sources talking about defections and read what they are currently saying.

Everyone dropped the AP story ages ago. AP was HOAXED.

Everyone, Guardian included, says the defection thing didn't happen.

Even RT says that six "tanks" switched sides. Not "tank crews"... which is some hilarious spin. Yes, the six vehicles hijacked by pro-Russia forces switched sides.

[sabrina 1]

158. First, before I get to the question of the news reports re defecting troops.

What is stunning to me is that ANYONE here could support the unelected government in Kiev, which certainly does NOT represent a referendum from the people of Ukraine, but only a few thousand who were in Kiev, beating the police, attacking government buildings, clearly funded by outside sources, backed by the US, see leaked tapes, driving out the elected president then appointing, sometimes by FORCE, an 'interim' meaning 'unelected' government, claiming their 'right to protest' NOW sending in the MILITARY to deny others the same right THEY CLAIMED and the hypocritical Western 'powers' supported, but is now SILENT when this 'government' sends in TANKS and HELICOPTERS to 'crush' protesters against their takeover of the government.

Is THIS what we have come to?

Yes, it is. I learned that when people on THIS Forum, actually DEFENDED the brutal crackdown by Wall St.'s 'army' as Bloomberg called them, of Robo Cops on OWS.

I used to think that the survival of this Democracy where people had the right to peacefully protest government policies, depended on the LEFT. That WE would be the ones to stand up against that kind of Government force against the people, not just here, but ANYWHERE there is a supposed Democracy.

What I have learned over the past few years is that the 'Left' was not what it pretended to be during the Bush years. That the 'LEFT' actually opposed peaceful protests against Wall St Corruption and supported the brutal crackdown on them.

So I am no longer really surprised that the 'Left' now supports this egregious military show of force against Ukraine Protesters who HAD NO SAY IN THE COUP in Kiev.

Anyone who understood the country SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that at least half that nation would not want to be forced into a Western/IMF/World Bank controlled nation. No one ASKED THEM. Now they are doing as predicted by those who DID understand the country, THEY ARE DEMANDING a say in their own country.

AND THE KIEV 'interim', not elected, 'government has sent out the MILITARY!! This is the Democracy we are supposedly supporting?

Even without the reports of defection, this is certainly NO DEMOCRACY we have been supporting, is it?

Here are a few photos of our 'democratic friends' in Kiev's reaction to OTHER people's PROTESTS:
Tanks bearing Russian Flag Roll Cities Eastern Ukraine. Putin Warns Country Brink of Civil War



Protest: Supporters loyal to Moscow shout slogans during a rally in front of the occupied security service building in Lugansk, Ukraine

Some of the 'terrorists' Kiev intends to 'crush' with tanks and planes and whatever other weapons are needed to stop these 'terrorists' from exercising the same rights THEY claimed, until now! They sure do look like terrorists, don't they?


A masked soldier guards the column of combat vehicles, three of which were reportedly under Ukrainian command earlier in the day before switching sides to the separatist insurgency


Were there defections?

Looks that way and it should not be a surprise to anyone who has any knowledge of the country.

Would our National Guard eg, shoot at their own people? We KNOW that our Robo Cops would not, DID not hesitate, at least some of them. But would all of them do so? Tough question. Apparently at least SOME of THESE Troops will NOT according to reports.

Good for them, I would expect EVERY DEMOCRAT TO SAY. SURELY we have not sunk so low we would SUPPORT such a thing ANYWHERE we claim to be supporting DEMOCRACY?

There are plenty more photos and info at that link. And there are plenty more reports confirming the story that the actions of the Kiev illegitimate, unelected government's actions are working AGAINST THEM.

Isn't that GOOD NEWS for Democrats EVERYWHERE?

Let me ask, as in the past I have given way too much credit to OUR SIDE. Do YOU support this crackdown with the military on people who are merely protesting being forced to accept a future they have had NO SAY IN? Do you support the right of people everywhere to self determination, OR, do you support an unelected or even an elected Government, sending in the Military to frighten people into submission, into accepting a future they do not want?

From NPR:

In Ukraine Reports of Soldiers Switching to pro-Russia Side


Men sit on an armored personnel carrier in Slovyansk, Ukraine, on Wednesday. A Russian flag flies from it. When some Ukrainian forces approached the city, locals say, they were persuaded to hand over their vehicles to pro-Russia protesters.

Seems like the soldiers willingly allowed the protesters to place a Russian flag on the tank. They could have shot them, but apparently chose not to for whatever reason.

And from the NPR article, scattered reports from different news agencies, Reuters, the BBC etc:

From Reuters:

"A soldier guarding one of six troop carriers now under the control of pro-Russian separatists told Reuters he was a member of Ukraine's 25th paratrooper division from Dnipropetrovsk. 'All the soldiers and the officers are here. We are all boys who won't shoot our own people,' said the soldier, whose uniform did not have any identifying markings on it. 'They haven't fed us for three days on our base. They're feeding us here. Who do you think we are going to fight for?' he said."
In the city of Kramatorsk, though, there are "no Russian flags to be seen," Ari reported. It was there, as we noted Tuesday, that Ukrainian troops regained control of the local airfield. "A couple people were wounded" during a brief clash with pro-Russia gunmen, Ari said, "but we're told that nobody was killed."

Still, the BBC writes that while "Ukrainian troops have entered the eastern town of Kramatorsk ... they were blocked by civilians and the situation is unclear, amid reports that some may have abandoned their vehicles or even changed sides."

etc. etc. The ONLY report I have found denying this story is directly from the Kiev Unelected Ministry of Defense who denies that any troops have defected, but only after a period of silence. According to that report, the Minister also stated that he has no information however, on the whereabouts of the troops'.

So take what you will from all this, and many more reports.

The bottom line is it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS #1.

Clearly this is a country that is VERY divided and now half the country is asking for AUTONOMY, for SELF DETERMINATION. And the response they got from those who claimed to be asking for the SAME THING was an invasion by their own military!

Surely we as a nation are not supporting this in any way???

[jeff47]

149. No, you don't. You are continuing to lie.

I recall having these almost identical conversations re Al Jazeera back when the bush contingency was bashing them also.

The difference is you are on the Bush side this time. Because you are repeating lies.

NPR, The Guardian are reporting this same story.

No, they are not. They are reporting that the defections did not happen. You have been directed to stories from those same sources that report there was no defection. Yet you continue to make the claim. You are lying.

Why does it matter so much to you that Ukraine troops would be deserting AFTER being called out to attack THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

It matters because those defections did not happen. You are lying.

It's never a good thing to be on the wrong side of history.

Then perhaps you should stop lying.

We have no business there. Our TAX DOLLARS are being sent to Ukraine for WHAT???

To help stabilize the country after Russia invaded and damaged their economy.

What ARE we doing there??

We are not there. You are lying.

Too many sources now reporting that Ukraine troops are defecting from the coup appointed government in Ukraine.

One source is reporting it. A source which just so happens to be entirely funded by Russia. All the other sources you are attempting to cite are not reporting that. In other words, you are lying.

[sabrina 1]

159. See my post below, I really don't have time to repeat the facts again just for you.

Several sources are reporting that troops are defecting. Including NPR, Reuters, the BBC and the Daily Mail. See my post for links.

But who cares really? What is STUNNING is that any DEMOCRAT would support sending in TANKS and HELICOPTERS to crack down on PROTESTERS who are only asking to have a say in their own future. ARE YOU REALLY SUPPORTING THIS???

The VERY SAME ILLEGITIMATE, UNELECTED by the people who are protesting, so called 'government' who CLAIMED THEIR RIGHT TO VIOLENTLY PROTEST, are NOW sending in the military to deny other people the same right???

Surely you are not supporting this form of 'democracy'??

[jeff47]

173. No, they are not reporting that. Why are you insisting on lying?

Several sources are reporting that troops are defecting. Including NPR, Reuters, the BBC and the Daily Mail. See my post for links.

It's entertaining watching you change which sources are "trusted" based on where you find support for the lie you're telling. The Guardian no longer make your list, since they demonstrate you are lying?

But who cares really? What is STUNNING is that any DEMOCRAT would support sending in TANKS and HELICOPTERS to crack down on PROTESTERS who are only asking to have a say in their own future. ARE YOU REALLY SUPPORTING THIS???

QUICK!!! CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!

You are still lying. Changing the subject does not mean you are no longer lying.

[sabrina 1]

176. Thanks for confirming what I was hoping I was wrong about. You DO support

the unelected Kiev 'government' sending in the military to 'crush' the protests of the people of Ukraine!

But airc, you had a different view when the protests in Kiev were taking place. Back then you supported the people of Ukraine 'having the right to protest their government' and were appalled that the previous government sent in the police to try to stop the violence in Kiev. What changed your mind, assuming I am understanding you correctly?

How sad it would be to see Democrats supporting any government using its military to crush protests.

I will remember this next time we are about to intervene in whatever 'conflict' we help create in the future, when people claim to 'support the right of the people to protest without being attacked by their governments'.

This is why I like to engage in discussions. It takes a while to find out where people stand on issues sometimes, but it definitely helps to understand where people are coming from, once you do.

[jeff47]

177. And yet you're still lying

Even as you try to change the subject.

BTW, guess who else says the "fascist" claims about the Ukrainian government are wrong? The UN.

You DO support the unelected Kiev 'government' sending in the military to 'crush' the protests of the people of Ukraine!

I support reality. It's why I opposed the Iraq war. You support stories you like. Even when they are not true.

I will remember this next time we are about to intervene in whatever 'conflict' we help create in the future, when people claim to 'support the right of the people to protest without being attacked by their governments'.

Nope, you won't. Because you never do.

[sabrina 1]

181. Lol, keep on truckin' and avoiding the reality of the known facts. You are definitely entitled to be

wrong, which is often why people resort to name calling btw, when they cannot stick to the facts because they cannot back them up.

It's hard I know trying to defend the indefensible so I suppose I sympathize when I see the frustration revealed by the personal attacks, which btw, only make me smile.

[zappaman]

163. Wow.

You let yourself get pulled into the vortex, didn't you?
I don't even bother with that poster since they are utterly incapable of having a discussion that makes any sense whatsoever.
But I give you props for trying!

[jeff47]

172. Letting the lies go means others will believe them.

A lot of DU groupthink comes from what does not get challenged.

[arely staircase]

49. joining NATO is looking pretty smart about now. nt

[sabrina 1]

97. In YOUR opinion. But apparently NOT in the opinion of the Ukraine people.

Why is NATO interfering once again in a matter that is none of their business? I think the world pretty much knows why.

[arely staircase]

103. I'm guessing people from latvia to poland to croatia and all point in between are glad as hell right

now that they made that decision.

[Catherina]

89. Hillary's worst nightmare come true. Corporate MSM losing the propaganda war

Newsflash Hilllary, that's what happens when the corporate-owned MSM stops reporting news and tries to snow people by replacing real news with propaganda masquerading as "analysis".

[sabrina 1]

98. She did say 'we are losing the message'. How odd, the news is a 'message' now?? I thought the news

was about FACTS! And why would Congress be asked to fund that 'message'?? It's something that truly needs to be thoroughly investigated. Is the US Government paying to influence the news? We KNOW that happened during the Bush years. We KNOW that the Rendon Group was paid millions of dollars to 'sell the war in Iraq' to the American people. We KNOW they lied, they used the NYT, Judith Miller was one of their 'channels' they happily admitted.

And here we have it happening again???


Thankfully the MSM already listed around #47 on the World Press list this year, is watched only by a small % of the world's population.

I am FOR actual journalism, I don't want to be sent 'messages' bought and paid for by ANY government and certainly not by a Corporate owned media.

[Catherina]

107. Yes, a message. See my quote of the month from Robert Parry about the US Propaganda

He says the propaganda over Ukraine is the WORST he's seen in his entire career. It's so bad and blatant that some of my real life friends, faithful readers and defenders of the NYT, finally admitted to themselves that they're getting nothing but lies. I was so relieved and was especially happy about how they figured it out on their own this month, just by comparing the NYT's reporting with the BBC and the Independent.

Indeed, in my four-plus decades in journalism, I have never seen a more thoroughly biased and misleading performance by the major U.S. news media. Even during the days of Ronald Reagan – when much of the government’s modern propaganda structure was created – there was more independence in major news outlets. There were media stampedes off the reality cliff during George H.W. Bush’s Persian Gulf War and George W. Bush’s Iraq War, both of which were marked by demonstrably false claims that were readily swallowed by the big U.S. news outlets.

But there is something utterly Orwellian in the current coverage of the Ukraine crisis, including accusing others of “propaganda” when their accounts – though surely not perfect – are much more honest and more accurate than what the U.S. press corps has been producing.

Robert Parry http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/16-6

[sabrina 1]

126. Great post by Parry. I suppose he too is now on the 'under the bus' list.

Still trying to get a list of 'credible' sources, considering all the journalists who USED to be considered credible right here on DU are now almost all no longer credible. Having a hard time getting those sources those.

[Catherina]

136. Keep asking lol. You'll never get one

When I look at who's left in the bus, I'm very proud to be under it with the likes of Robert Parry and other people who've been consistently correct for the last 30 years.

[sabrina 1]

138. Me too. Sy Hersch is the latest to join the crowd under the bus. First to report the Torture crimes

before the photos of Abu Ghraib surfaced. Big hero on the Left during the Bush years. Now tossed away like an old sock. Lol! All of this of course makes the criticism of RT laughable. Because it puts them in the same category as Chris Hedges, Sy Hersch, Michael Moore, (all of whom have been allowed to speak on RT btw while apparently banned from the Corporate Media).

Which is why I love the critics for actually complimenting RT inadvertently which perceptive readers see clearly. When the same people dismiss some of this country's most respected journalists who dare to report NEWS, also try to dismiss RT, it only enhances the reputation of RT.

I guess they don't get that?

I was trying to think if there are ANY investigative journalists in the Corporate Media? I can't think of a single one, yet the Corporate Media is accepted as a 'reliable source' for some odd reason.

There is something strange about how the Left once KNEW the Corporate Media was nothing more than propaganda, after all we have PROOF of that, yet now apparently, (although none have actually responded to my questions with links to the MSM to be honest), however a few have reminded me that RT is not 'allowed in LBN'. Yet, the Corporate media IS! I wish someone would explain this for me!

I am so confused! Lol!

Well, not really to be honest.

[Catherina]

160. All the right people on the Left are under the bus. It's not even respectable 2b anywhere else now!

The criticism of RT is beyond laughable but by my observations marching orders were sent from the top, where they know they're still losing the information war. And for good reason after a long, substantiated record of misleading the public for their corporate owners. RT's viewership numbers keep shooting up so they're very worried. The desperate squealing and shrieking from a thoroughly discredited quarter only helps so I hope those back-handed compliments continue.

I like the weasel wording that RT isn't allowed in LBN. Skinner said he was leaving that up to the host teams. The hosts that hate RT are pretending it's a hard and fast "rule", something we no longer even have at DU3 and that totally contradicts DU's mission statement that this is a forum for Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter.

I hope more Lefty donors start packing the LBN forum hosting to knock some sense into this.

The minute I see someone squealing against RT, I just put them on ignore because it shows exactly where they're coming from. It's one thing to criticize some Op-eds they publish (which are mild in comparison to Op-eds of absolute hate we see in organs like the NYT or that itching-for-war New Republic that helped lie us into Iraq and is still publishing pieces by neocon Robert fucking Kagan) but it's another to try to discredit their reporting as "propaganda" when everyone knows who the masters of propaganda are. Wake me up when they find those WMDs ok?

I'm only confused by the inconsistency which is as incoherent as our foreign policy, but not the intent. The intent is clear. Wave those flags and don't interrupt the march to war because our corporate government has been working on this longrange plan forever since Zbigniew Brzezinski armed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan over 35 years ago in his Grand Chessboard war against Russia.

Russian studies professor Stephen F. Cohen stated in 2012 that RT does a lot of stories that "reflect badly" on the United States and that they are "particularly aggrieved by American sermonizing abroad." Thus RT compares stories about Russia allowing mass protests of the 2011–2012 Russian election protests with those of U.S. authorities nationwide arresting members of the Occupy movement. Cohen states that despite the pro-Kremlin slant, "any intelligent viewer can sort this out. I doubt that many idiots find their way to RT."[104]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29#cite_note-Zwick-104

“I’m highly suspicious about the narrative I’m getting on CNN,” he (Cohen) says. “It seems to be the flip side of RT. It’s too black and white, too virtuous and simple. Each side sounds like one hand clapping.” RT might have a hard Kremlin slant, but Cohen argues that “any intelligent viewer can sort this out. I doubt that many idiots find their way to RT. First, you have to pay a lot for cable, and then you have to get way up in the numbers to find it.”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/world/magazine/101703/russia-tv-rtv-cohen-alyona

That's what seems to be worrying them the most, "I doubt that many idiots find their way to RT."

as reported in a reasonably balanced article (despite undertones of jealousy for RT's fine work) from the New Republic titled Pravda Lite.

[Catherina]

94. "much more honest and more accurate than what the U.S. press corps has been producing" Robert Parry

"Indeed, in my four-plus decades in journalism, I have never seen a more thoroughly biased and misleading performance by the major U.S. news media. Even during the days of Ronald Reagan – when much of the government’s modern propaganda structure was created – there was more independence in major news outlets. There were media stampedes off the reality cliff during George H.W. Bush’s Persian Gulf War and George W. Bush’s Iraq War, both of which were marked by demonstrably false claims that were readily swallowed by the big U.S. news outlets.

But there is something utterly Orwellian in the current coverage of the Ukraine crisis, including accusing others of “propaganda” when their accounts – though surely not perfect – are much more honest and more accurate than what the U.S. press corps has been producing."

Robert Parry, Ukraine, Through the US Looking Glass, April 16, 2014

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/16-6

[840high]

131. As reliable as MSM.

[LittleBlue]

9. These must be Russian imposters

As are the cheering crowds.

[newthinking]

12. They sure did ship a ton of peope in from Russia

Look at them all! With all the cities in the East there must be millions of Russian operatives in Ukraine. Or at least that is what some media would like us to believe.

[LittleBlue]

14. That grandmotherly lady in the lower left must be Putin's spymaster

We've caught you red-handed, Pooty

[Xolodno]

68. Nah....

I think its the blonde in the red coat holding the red portion of the flag....she's caught red handed...and coated....and herring.

[cthulu2016]

102. Is that suppoed to be clever? They WERE imposters.

The guys riding around on the tanks were, in fact, not Ukranian soldiers.

[Jesus Malverde]

114. Source?

[cthulu2016]

120. Okay

I don't know that anyone, anywhere, is still claiming the men on the tanks were Ukrainian military who had started out with the vehicles.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/who-are-men-eastern-ukraine-tanks

[Jesus Malverde]

122. From your article...

They were taken without a shootout, suggesting that the troops who had arrived with them had at least to some extent joined the rebels. One of the force reportedly revealed he was a paratrooper from the 25th regiment based in Dnipropetrovsk.

The 25th regiment is widely reported to have gone over to the other side of the conflict.

Thanks for adding the link.

From the guardian earlier.

Later about 40 to 50 Ukrainian paratroopers who had been on been on the vehicles were released from Slavyansk city hall and loaded onto two buses. They said they were heading to the neighbouring region of Dnipropetrovsk, where their 25th regiment is based.

The troops carried rucksacks and many of them kept their weapons, but they looked defeated. "What were we supposed to do? Shoot peaceful protestors?" one soldier told the Guardian when asked why they had chosen to leave.

He said the soldiers were properly equipped and supplied, denying that they were going hungry.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/pro-russian-separatists-seize-ukrainian-armoured-vehicles

Interesting developments.

[sabrina 1]

127. Sad isn't it? That the very people here who claimed to support the 'right of protesters' in Kiev,

are now supporting the coup appointed government sending out the MILITARY with tanks and planes and weapons to stop protesters in other parts of Ukraine. The hypocrisy is simply stunning.

Thanks for excerpting that, I had already read it. Also reported by NPR and the The Daily Mail airc.

And no one should be surprised IF they knew anything about that country. But not knowing anything about one of our 'target' nations never stopped some Americans from expressing their 'expert' opinions on what is best for those places, see Faux viewers on iraq et.

Interesting too that polls show that the less Americans know about a country we are iinvolved in, the more likely they are to support our involvement there. The MORE informed Americans are the less likely they are to support our interference.

[cthulu2016]

132. well...

"suggesting that the troops who had arrived with them had at least to some extent joined the rebels"

That bit of speculation is simply bullshit, unless backed by something other than the evidence claimed to back it. (That the tanks were surrendered.)

The entire Ukrainian military in Crimea surrendered pretty much everything anyone demanded without a shoot-out. So I suppose that "suggests" the entire Ukrainian military contingent in Ukraine had, at least to some extent, joined the rebels.

It's not even a theory. More an ass-covering spasm. The Guardian had, earlier, fallen for the defection hoax, and that story has been rewritten on the fly a couple of times. That may well be a watered down version of language from an earlier version.


I don't find the idea of defections incredible or even unlikely. But the story about the defecting Ukranians riding their tanks into town was phony.

"They said they were heading to the neighboring region of Dnipropetrovsk, where their 25th regiment is based."

When you desert from the military to defect to another power you don't return to your base after your "at least to some extent" defection.

[William769]

19. Count on them.

[dipsydoodle]

21. You forgot to include the Guardian and Reuters on this occasion.

11.23am BST

It looks like the Ukranian attempt to reassert control in Slavyansk has gone awry, with some troops going over to the pro-Russian side. This from Reuters.

At least three armoured personal carriers that were driven in to the eastern Ukrainian city of Slavyansk had been under the control of Ukrainian armed forces earlier on Wednesday, Reuters photographers said.

A soldier manning one of the troop carriers now under the control of pro-Russian separatists identified himself to Reuters as being a member of Ukraine's 25th paratrooper division from Dnipropetrovsk.

He said: "All the soldiers and the officers are here. We are all boys who won't shoot our own people."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/ukraine-on-the-brink-live-blog-16-april

[William769]

22. Well in their defense they are reporting what the individual said to them.

Now put that in the context of this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014780568 and...

[dipsydoodle]

24. As I mentioned in the link you provided

the video was posted on Youtube by Euromaidan PR who managed to make complete fools of themselves 2 weeks ago when they fabricated a video alleged to be two Russian Ambassadors discussing an upcoming UN meeting but made the mistake of including as one of the two a Russian Ambassador who died late last year.

Kinda creates a crediibility problem that.

[William769]

27. Mistakes happen.

When they happen everyday then they are not mistakes (say like the two mentioned in my graphic). There is also a reason RT has been kicked out of LBN if that ever happens to "Euromaidan" well then I would take what you just wrote more seriously.

As to "As I mentioned in the link you provided" I looked at all your post in that thread and I seem to have missed where you mentioned that. If you could give me a direct link so I can see what was said, that would be appreciated.

[dipsydoodle]

29. This one :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014780568#post7

[William769]

33. Thanks.

I read the actual article and I don't even see the news outlet you mentioned mentioned. What you wrote to what I read in the article does not make sense.

[dipsydoodle]

40. Here's a still shot

The guy on the right is Yuri Vladimirovich Dubinin who died 20th December 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Dubinin

The connection was that Euromaidan PR also posted the other video you mentioned.

[FarCenter]

25. Pro-Russia separatists ‘seize’ Ukrainian armoured vehicles

Ukraine’s defence ministry on Wednesday said pro-Moscow militants had seized a column of Ukrainian armoured vehicles sent to the country’s troubled east in a bid to restore order, suggesting Russian agents were directly involved in the takeover.

“A column was blocked by a crowd of local people in Kramatorsk with members of a Russian diversionary-terrorist group among them,” the statement said. “As a result of the blocking, extremists seized the equipment.”

The statement said the troop carriers were now in nearby Slaviansk, guarded by “people in uniforms who have no relation to Ukraine’s armed forces.”

AP also reported that a column of six armoured vehicles flying Russian flags and controlled by masked men had entered Slaviansk on Wednesday.

But it was far from clear who these mostly masked men were. One of the men on the vehicles said they were Ukrainian soldiers who had defected to the pro-Russian side, but an AP journalist overheard another soldier suggesting that they were forced to hand over the vehicles.

“How was I supposed to behave if I had guns pointed at me?” the soldier, who did not identify himself, asked a resident.

http://www.france24.com/en/20140415-ukraine-launches-anti-terrorist-operation-pro-russia-separatists-east/

Earlier

Ukraine Finds Its Forces Are Ill Equipped to Take Crimea Back From Russia

During Ukraine’s recent military reforms, contract soldiers were allowed to serve near their homes, meaning that many of the junior officer corps on the peninsula are also residents of Crimea, which is majority ethnic-Russian, so they are possibly more pro-Russian in their views.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/ukraine-finds-its-forces-are-ill-equipped-to-take-crimea-back-from-russia.html

This is completely at odds with correct military doctrine, which is that if you need to shoot members of ethnic group A, you use troops from ethnic group Z.

[sabrina 1]

26. Got anything to counter the reporting in the OP? I've already checked this story and it appears to

backed by most credible news sources.

Just fyi, btw, Faux is a Right Wing Propaganda machine, which airc, whose sole purpose is to back Bush/Cheney policies.

RT otoh, gives voice to many Liberals who are not permitted on our Corporate Media, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges, Pepe Escobar, you know, the people DUers TRUSTED throughout the Bush years.

So, what is wrong in the reporting in the OP? People don't respect slogans anymore, certainly not Liberals who never did btw. We are the kind of people and always were, who are suspicious of slogans and generally want facts, slogans are for 'selling' something Usually not the facts.

Seems RT got this story right.

[jeff47]

32. Try reading the post directly above yours. (nt)

[sabrina 1]

41. I've read every post here Still not getting answers to my question, though. So I'll try asking again

What is incorrect in the reporting linked to in the OP?

Thanks in advance. Btw, I should tell you that I have already read several other reports, including some from Kiev news agencies so I have double checked this reporting as I always do.

However, I am interested in DISCUSSION of the OP. So, perhaps you can point out what is wrong about the reporting here?? No one has so far, so I'm assuming the report is for the most part, correct? Is that a fair assumption?

[jeff47]

75. No, you haven't. Because the very title of the post I mentioned answers your question.

Pro-Russia separatists ‘seize’ Ukrainian armoured vehicles

Hey look! It turns out Ukranian army troops didn't defect, as claimed by RT and the OP.

The army troops were not willing to shoot or run over civilians. So they got out of their APCs and walked home. RT reported this as amry troops defecting, despite the fact that these troops are not doing so.

RT is lying. Again.

Thanks in advance. Btw, I should tell you that I have already read several other reports, including some from Kiev news agencies so I have double checked this reporting as I always do.

Well, considering the Guardian, Reuters, and a whole big pile of other media sources are showing that RT is lying again, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that claim.

However, I am interested in DISCUSSION of the OP

No, you're not. You're interested in promoting a particular version of events that you like. No different than the Teabaggers who insist there must be something evil around Benghazi.

[NuclearDem]

39. They give voices to people who are critical of the West and the US

A lot of it is fair criticism, but it comes from being bankrolled by the Kremlin, not noble journalism.

If it was honest, independent journalism, we'd see similar criticisms levied against Russian imperialism and homophobia. But we don't, because they're ultimately beholden to the Kremlin's interest.

[sabrina 1]

43. You must not watch it. I have seen plenty of reporting on the opposition

to Putin eg, and most of the coverage of the protests against Putin I saw on RT not anywhere else. I have also seen a whole lot of discussion of Russia's Gay Rights movement, and find it appalling that people who clearly have not watched a network, same thing with Al Jazeera back when Bush was occupying the WH, make statements that are totally FALSE.

Many of the women reporters on RT, are American Liberals, so yes, there IS a Liberal bias in their reporting on issues such as Women's rights, gay rights etc. But I thought that was a GOOD THING.

Eg, so far I have not seen it on our Corporate Media, but RT reported today on some good news from India, regarding the rights of the LGBT community. I applauded that report but am still looking for it on our own Corporate media.

I have also seen Russia's Gay Rights activists interviewed on Rt where they had no problem expressing their views on the country's laws.

So I know that when I see comments such as yours, no offense, I know they are from people who are not familiar with the network at all.

The BBC is funded by our 'Imperial Ally' the UK Govt.

Al Jazeera by another of our Imperial Allies and oppressive govts against women, gays, the poor etc, Qatar.

So, since we know all this, WHO IS CREDIBLE in your opinion?

I eg, get to see people on RT that the left here in the US has long respected on Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Gay Rights that I know I will never see on our Corporate Media. What is NOT to like about finally seeing these great journalists free to speak out on issues WE SUPPORT, or say we do, on the Left.

[NuclearDem]

53. No major media outlet is 100% credible or free of bias and slant.

Al Jazeera does terrific coverage of Israel-Palestine and did equally terrific coverage of Iraq. I know because I speak Arabic and learned and continue to maintain that skill partially through Al Jazeera Arabic. I don't expect them to report fairly on the human rights situations in Saudi Arabia or Qatar because of their connections to the region.

The BBC does good reporting on many international issues, but because it's a government outlet, I don't expect the most independent reporting on the UK's government.

Some MSM outlets in the US do good reporting on civil rights and foreign affairs issues, but because they are corporately owned, I don't expect widespread criticism of capitalism.

RT may cover international issues well, and cover some dissent in Russia, but given their bankrolling by the Kremlin, I don't expect them to be highly critical of Putin himself or on something so directly tied to the Kremlin's interests such as Ukraine.

No major outlet is going to be free of bias, and all one can do is know where the bias comes from and filter relevant stories accordingly. Never trust just one source.

[sabrina 1]

62. Of course no one should ever trust one source and thanks for acknowledging that

RT's government funding is no more of an issue when Reporters are covering news stories, than the, sadly coopted (remember what happened to the BBC during the Blair war mongering years) BBC, or our own now Koch Bros, worse than ANY govt imho, funded PBS.

Regardless of who is funding a network, and not one of them is free from funding of either governments, or worse, Koch Bros Private Corps, it is the PEOPLE who are allowed to speak freely that I am interested in watching.

Eg, I will watch Pepe Escobar ANYWHERE I can find him due to his excellent reporting on the Bush War Mongering and Lies throughout that awful period. Truth was hard to find, I wish we had had RT then where people like Amy Goodman, Greg Palast who had to leave this country to speak the truth, and all the other credible reporters who were BLOCKED from the Corporate Media, could have had a voice.

Our country BOMBED Al Jazeera in two countries, killed and detained some of their reporters. There is NO way I would EVER trust a Corporate Owned Media after what we witnessed here in this country.

RT of course is going to try to make Russia look good. Is that a crime? I KNOW people, in my own family eg, who have travelled around Russia and are very impressed with the people there and the hospitality plus the incredible history going back centuries. Afte the dark days of the Soviet Union, who can blame them for trying to show the world some of the more positive aspects of their country?

But the lame, stupid smearing of news sources, Al Jazeera during the Bush years, and now RT, only makes intelligent people more likely, as it did with the Left re Al Jazeera which probably kept them going, to watch and judge for themselves.

The more I see a News outlet slammed, the more likely I am to check it out, because it generally means someone is 'uncomfortable' about what is being said there, someone in power.

RT is very similar to AJ, has some excellent international reporters, as did AJ and no amount of slamming it shamefully now from the Left is going to stop those reporters many of whom are American, British, French, from reporting what they are witnessing.

[NuclearDem]

67. It's not a news organization's job to rehabilitate a country's image.

That's the people's and governments' job. Highlighting culture and history is suppose to be done through cultural exchanges or major international events (like Sochi). News outlets have to cover the news independently, even if it makes their home country look bad.

Sorry, but that argument would get laughed out of the room here if someone said the US media should rehabilitate its Cold War or even Iraq War image by downplaying the drone program or election rigging.

Yes, Russia has a rich culture and a rich history. Absolutely no one is saying otherwise. But it's also virulently homophobic (tied only with Ukraine as the worst on the continent), it butchers its own people and violently represses dissent, and is attempting to rebuild its imperial past by grabbing land from and intimidating its neighbors. That HAS to be reported on. It makes Russia look bad, because it IS bad.

[sabrina 1]

128. People DO laugh at our Corporate Media. Are you seriously suggesting we get 'truth' and 'facts'

about our illegal invasions from the corporate media? When was the last time you saw an interview with an Iraqi mother whose child was blown to bits by our WMDs on the Corporate Media? I HAVE seen victims, women who were raped by our 'contractors' eg, elsewhere, certainly NOT on our MSM.

What is your point regarding homophobia? Are you aware that some of our closest allies KILL Gays simply because they are Gay? Ever heard of Saudi Arabia, Uganda eg? Using Gays and women when convenient is a despicable thing to do and frankly we are sick to death of it.

Women in Saudi Arabia eg are oppressed to the extreme. Got any concerns about that or do only care about such issues when it is politically convenient?

Here is how I take these comments that use women and gays when the US gets itself involved in yet another conflict. Are they EQUALLY likely to raise the issue, women eg, in the countries of our Allies? I have not seen you express concern for Gays in Saudi Arabia where they are far, far more oppressed than in Russia eg. I have read about Russia's Gay Rights Activists and heard them object to being USED by the West for political purposes stating that WE ARE HARMING THEM by doing so.

As a woman, I have LONG objected to our support for countries that abuse women, not just when it is politically convenient to do so. Because I ACTUALLY CARE about the issue. I have seen people here pretend to care about issues like this that I have never seen them care about elsewhere.

Iraq eg, women were treated as equals in Saddam's Iraq, they even had what we women still do not have here, EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK. I have not seen you complain about the plight of women NOW in Iraq, since WE brought them 'democracy'. Do you KNOW what has happened to those once educated, free, equally treated women since OUR invasion of their country?

Please do not 'use' people's civil rights as a political tool, it only angers people more and certainly does nothing for the people who are directly affected by their country's laws.

[NuclearDem]

137. Oh don't you even fucking dare.

I have absolutely made my position on LGBT rights around the world crystal clear; in fact, I believe it was something along the lines of "fuck the Saudi royal family, fuck the Ayatollah, fuck Putin and the Duma, fuck the religious right, and fuck Musevini."

So don't you fucking dare imply I don't care about LGBT rights in those countries. Just don't fucking do it. Especially when you, in the face of LGBT posters criticizing Putin's blatant homophobia and per usual, deflected it by trying to make some bullshit false equivalency between Russia and the roundly defeated Arizona bill, like somehow that bill made the US as horrible towards its LGBT community as Russia.

So just don't fucking do it. Don't even dare try to accuse me of using LGBT rights and women's rights as a "useful tool", when the only fucking times I hear you bring them up is when you need to deflect criticism.

Just fucking stop already. I'm getting sick of this shit. Goodbye, welcome to ignore.

[sabrina 1]

147. No, you stop. Sick to death of this garbage. I don't know you from adam. IF you want to attack

Putin do it on what his position in this situation is but it IS using the rights of minorities when someone SUPPORTS US Policies which include our support for some of the most anti women, anti gay dictatorships in the world. 'Fuck the Saudis' is not the way to help minorities there. Fuck our Government for supporting them is the right way to help them.

I am sick to death of our 'foreign policies' which have brought so much tragedy, death and destruction to so many millions of human beings from Latin America where we supported some of the worst dictatorships, to the ME where we do the same, to Africa where we support regimes that oppress their own people so long as WE GET what we want to the 'Stan countries and their Dictators who torture and commit genocide against their own people.

YOU stop! Fuck this sudden support for what we on the Left not so long ago totally opposed and for good reason.

The Saudis and the Ugandans, the dictatorships of Bahrain, Uzbekistan and all the others we support while ignoring their human rights abuses, then dare to pretend we care, as a nation, about those same rights when it is convenient to do so.

What I think of our hypocritical foreign policy has not changed one bit, because IT has not changed one bit.

Human Rights are not our strong point and we have zero moral authority to attack ANYONE else when there are WOMEN AND CHILDREN who were raped, some tortured to death in our 'detention centers' and we are told to MOVE FORWARD from that, while some here think they can seriously point to other nations and expect NOT to be reminded of our own egregious Human Rights abuses.

Forgive me if I have not forgotten the women of Iraq and Afghanistan, raped and tortured and still awaiting justice from US. Forgive me if I have not forgotten the still not revealed photos of, as one Senator said 'we are talking about RAPE, about CHILDREN, about torture, murder, as Sy Hersch spoke about, that IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY but we seem to be distracted lately from OUR OWN obligations to restore the rule of law RIGHT HERE.

The US as a nation are not the ones to speak about human rights abuses, until they set their own record straight by prosecuting the criminals and until then are in NO POSITION to point fingers elsewhere, which is what I pointed out and will continue to do so.

I am outraged that we think we can 'move forward' from the massive crimes against humanity committed by our own government. That is OUR responsibility. Gay Rights activists in Russia have stated they do not want our 'help'. I respect their request for us to stop rousing up the haters THERE by drawing attention to them for own political purposes.

To use your vernacular, fuck all of the hypocrisy we once thought existed only on the Right. So YOU stop and I won't need to point it all out all the time. Sick of having to do what I thought our leaders would have done by now, THEN MAYBE we could have pointed our fingers at other abusers of human rights without having them point right back at us, as they do..

[arely staircase]

46. how did I know this would be RT?

Lucky guess?

[dipsydoodle]

50. Cynicism doesn't help when the reply #1 back its up elsewhere

Does it.

[arely staircase]

56. what? nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. How did I know the discussion would devolve into being about the messenger rather than the message?

[arely staircase]

57. because the messenger is so flawed it stinks up everything. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. So, reporting the news accurately depends on the smell?

Or, does it have to do with your dislike of the news reported?

[arely staircase]

60. they are the propaganda arm of a homophobic fascist.

They can bite my ass.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. You have yet to comment on the story.

[arely staircase]

63. nor do I comment on what stormfront is saying

Fuck all bigots.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. OK. How about commenting on the same story by The Guardian and NYTimes?

Or, are they all bigots too?

[arely staircase]

69. they aren't the op. that steamy pile of fascist shit is. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. The story is the same. Is it the story you object to?

The OP is about the story not the publisher (or, one of the publishers) of the story.

[arely staircase]

73. I have no opinion on the story

But I never miss an oportunity to point out what fucksticks RT are.

[jeff47]

77. Ok, let's.

The Guardian and NYTimes are saying that RT is lying again.

RT reported the story as "Ukrainian troops defect!!!"

The Guardian and NYTimes reported it as "There are some reports Ukranian troops defected". And then followed up with "Nope, they were not willing to run over or shoot civilians, so they abandoned their APCs and walked back".

Did RT issue a correction?

[joshcryer]

143. RT never issues corrections.

They don't even delete blatant falsehoods. In fact you can find lies posted on their site to this day. It's all about conspiracy-mind-think.

[jeff47]

174. I know. I'm asking about it to point out that RT never corrects. (nt)

[dipsydoodle]

65. Or the Guardian or Reuters come to that

.

[arely staircase]

70. what? nt

[Scootaloo]

135. Well, because for some, there's no need to discuss the message

They already know the "proper" message, and all voices that say otherwise are completely wrong about everything

[joshcryer]

140. Well, certainly RT's lies get buried in the mud.

RT totally mischaracterized what happened as a "defection" and no one is talking about that.

[sabrina 1]

165. Because it is one of the most reliable international news sources and recognized as such??

[arely staircase]

170. you know this story turned out to br bullshit right? nt

[Catherina]

87. The babushkas as terrorists meme not working out the way we planned

Saw this somewhere else

NeoCon/NeoLib to General Asshat: "What do you mean they started hanging out, drinking vodka, and eating cakes?"

General Asshat: "I don't know sir we had expected Russia to jump in by now.
The babushkas as terrorists meme isn't working out the way we planned"

[Tommy_Carcetti]

88. Well, I *suppose* this might be considered a babushka by some.....

[Jesus Malverde]

117. Memes from fox news.

If ever their was a source to stay away from.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/13/kiev-government-to-deploy-troops-in-ukraine-east-in-bid-to-restore-order/

[joshcryer]

142. That is Associated Press.

But you probably didn't see the attribution.

I'm sure we can trash the AP too despite that 95% of their reporters are field reporters and you have to scrutinize them on a report by report basis (some AP reporters are very liberal others are right wingers, etc).

[joshcryer]

141. That's a revolutionary man of the people.

Duh.

[Jesus Malverde]

91. I'm sure the Cheneyites and McCainoistas will be all over this...nt

[malaise]

100. Chris Hayes is covering this very well tonight n/t

[Catherina]

105. Details Malaise please

so I can decide if it's worth the time to track it down and listen to it on an alternate site that won't say "sorry, you're not in the US".

[Oilwellian]

106. Robert Parry chimes in

As the post-coup regime in Ukraine sends troops and paramilitaries to crack down on ethnic Russian protesters in the east, the U.S. news media continues to feed the American public a steady dose of anti-Russian propaganda, often wrapped in accusations of “Russian propaganda,” Robert Parry reports.

(snip)

Indeed, in my four-plus decades in journalism, I have never seen a more thoroughly biased and misleading performance by the major U.S. news media. Even during the days of Ronald Reagan – when much of the government’s modern propaganda structure was created – there was more independence in major news outlets. There were media stampedes off the reality cliff during George H.W. Bush’s Persian Gulf War and George W. Bush’s Iraq War, both of which were marked by demonstrably false claims that were readily swallowed by the big U.S. news outlets.

But there is something utterly Orwellian in the current coverage of the Ukraine crisis, including accusing others of “propaganda” when their accounts – though surely not perfect – are much more honest and more accurate than what the U.S. press corps has been producing.

There’s also the added risk that this latest failure by the U.S. press corps is occurring on the border of Russia, a nuclear-armed state that – along with the United States – could exterminate all life on the planet. The biased U.S. news coverage is now feeding into political demands to send U.S. military aid to Ukraine’s coup regime.

The casualness of this propaganda – as it spreads across the U.S. media spectrum from Fox News to MSNBC, from the Washington Post to the New York Times – is not just wretched journalism but it is reckless malfeasance jeopardizing the lives of many Ukrainians and the future of the planet.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/16/ukraine-through-the-us-looking-glass/

[Catherina]

108. +1000. It's my quote of the month now!

[another_liberal]

119. "This propaganda . . . is not just wretched journalism but it is reckless malfeasance."

That needed to be said!

Thank you very much for posting this outstanding reply.

[reformist2]

167. +1000. Sadly, our state department and our press are lying to us about this.

[another_liberal]

168. Yes, that is because they don't really serve the American people . . .

They serve the wealthy and powerful who see Ukraine as a prize won, a prize they intend to loot and waste for their own benefit alone.

[840high]

134. +1

[joshcryer]

145. Fact: Men abandon APCs to avoid armed conflict. RT: Men defect for the revolution.