HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Research concludes the Ma...

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 08:59 AM

 

Research concludes the Maidan Square snipers were anti-government militants.

When, in early 2014, unarmed demonstrators and even government riot police in Maidan Square were being shot and killed by snipers, Western sources, without bothering to investigate, immediately accepted that the murders had to have been ordered by President Yanukovych's crowd control officials. This was despite undisputed video of snipers firing from windows high in several buildings occupied by anti-government protesters. The West was in no mood to accommodate suggestions anyone else might be at fault. The Ukrainian government was corrupt and evil, the logic seemed to go, so of course they had to be guilty! Now, however, unbiased examination of the evidence has concluded that was just not the case.




Fire and smoke shroud Maidan Square, February, 2014 (Sputnik)



Study Proves Maidan Snipers Were Western-Backed Opposition’s False Flag


A study of the February 20, 2014 “Snipers’ massacre” in Kiev, where scores of protesters were killed by shots fired from surrounding buildings, has proved that it was carried out by Western-backed opposition groups. The research found that the Berkut special police force, which was loyal to the Ukrainian government, was not responsible, contrary to the narrative which was created by the post-Maidan coup government in Kiev, and consequently accepted by Western governments and media.

Ivan Katchanovski, a teacher of political science at the University of Ottawa, studied eyewitness reports, estimates of ballistic trajectories, 30 gigabytes of security forces’ radio intercepts, 5,000 photos and 1,500 videos and broadcast recordings of the protesters’ deaths.

“This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power,” wrote Katchanovski in his study, called ‘The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine.’

“It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas.”

(snip)



Read more at: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160103/1032633643/study-maidan-deaths-false-flag.html


115 replies, 5178 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 115 replies Author Time Post
Reply Research concludes the Maidan Square snipers were anti-government militants. (Original post)
another_liberal Jan 2016 OP
Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #1
Human101948 Jan 2016 #2
another_liberal Jan 2016 #3
GGJohn Jan 2016 #4
another_liberal Jan 2016 #12
Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #14
another_liberal Jan 2016 #62
snooper2 Jan 2016 #75
another_liberal Jan 2016 #106
GGJohn Jan 2016 #18
malaise Jan 2016 #5
another_liberal Jan 2016 #7
GGJohn Jan 2016 #9
Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #17
GGJohn Jan 2016 #8
malaise Jan 2016 #15
Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #19
GGJohn Jan 2016 #22
MattSh Jan 2016 #84
GGJohn Jan 2016 #85
MattSh Jan 2016 #89
leveymg Jan 2016 #6
another_liberal Jan 2016 #10
GGJohn Jan 2016 #11
another_liberal Jan 2016 #13
GGJohn Jan 2016 #23
another_liberal Jan 2016 #36
GGJohn Jan 2016 #40
another_liberal Jan 2016 #47
GGJohn Jan 2016 #49
another_liberal Jan 2016 #56
GGJohn Jan 2016 #63
another_liberal Jan 2016 #67
GGJohn Jan 2016 #69
another_liberal Jan 2016 #71
GGJohn Jan 2016 #78
LanternWaste Jan 2016 #102
Octafish Jan 2016 #98
leveymg Jan 2016 #20
GGJohn Jan 2016 #24
Igel Jan 2016 #90
leveymg Jan 2016 #92
leveymg Jan 2016 #16
Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #21
GGJohn Jan 2016 #25
rjsquirrel Jan 2016 #26
Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2016 #27
another_liberal Jan 2016 #31
Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2016 #34
another_liberal Jan 2016 #39
GGJohn Jan 2016 #43
betterdemsonly Jan 2016 #50
GGJohn Jan 2016 #52
betterdemsonly Jan 2016 #59
GGJohn Jan 2016 #66
betterdemsonly Jan 2016 #70
Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #77
Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2016 #48
leveymg Jan 2016 #88
pampango Jan 2016 #28
another_liberal Jan 2016 #29
DetlefK Jan 2016 #32
another_liberal Jan 2016 #42
DetlefK Jan 2016 #46
leveymg Jan 2016 #99
pampango Jan 2016 #37
DetlefK Jan 2016 #30
another_liberal Jan 2016 #33
DetlefK Jan 2016 #35
another_liberal Jan 2016 #44
GGJohn Jan 2016 #45
Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2016 #38
DetlefK Jan 2016 #53
Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2016 #55
leveymg Jan 2016 #100
karynnj Jan 2016 #97
leveymg Jan 2016 #101
karynnj Jan 2016 #111
leveymg Jan 2016 #114
MohRokTah Jan 2016 #41
randome Jan 2016 #51
OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #54
another_liberal Jan 2016 #57
Codeine Jan 2016 #60
another_liberal Jan 2016 #73
OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #61
GGJohn Jan 2016 #68
DetlefK Jan 2016 #72
another_liberal Jan 2016 #74
DetlefK Jan 2016 #79
OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #82
leveymg Jan 2016 #110
DetlefK Jan 2016 #113
leveymg Jan 2016 #115
Trajan Jan 2016 #58
randome Jan 2016 #64
OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #65
another_liberal Jan 2016 #76
GGJohn Jan 2016 #80
edhopper Jan 2016 #81
Bradical79 Jan 2016 #83
another_liberal Jan 2016 #86
GGJohn Jan 2016 #87
leveymg Jan 2016 #94
another_liberal Jan 2016 #105
another_liberal Jan 2016 #103
OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #91
another_liberal Jan 2016 #104
OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #107
another_liberal Jan 2016 #108
leveymg Jan 2016 #93
LeftyMom Jan 2016 #95
leveymg Jan 2016 #96
LanternWaste Jan 2016 #109
leveymg Jan 2016 #112

Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:03 AM

1. Sputnik, lol

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:04 AM

2. Far out man!

 

Outta this world!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:05 AM

3. It's even funnier that you choose to post . . .

 

With nothing at all to say but: "Sputnik, lol."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:12 AM

4. What's to say?

It's even funnier when you constantly chose to use only Russian owned propaganda sources as your "news" sources.
Sputnik News?
Might as well be Pravda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:26 AM

12. If you have nothing to say . . .

 

It's better to just listen and learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:29 AM

14. but there is nothing to learn from

 

The lies put out by Putin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:04 AM

62. That kind of a closed-minded attitude . . .

 

Is not what I would call "listening," and it also precludes any hope of "learning."


"The most sublime conquests, and the only ones without regret, are those rested from ignorance."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #62)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:23 AM

75. You could have found a better researched "article" from counterpunch couldn't you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #75)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:34 PM

106. Maybe, but I liked this one . . .

 

You, however, are quite free to post your own OP. I may even comment on it if you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:32 AM

18. Listen and learn?

From sputnik news?
That's a riot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:14 AM

5. We knew that from day one

but they'll attack the source.
I still need an explanation for the silence re the attack on the union building that killed so many people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:18 AM

7. The massacre in Odessa a few months after Maidan?

 

Yeah, it has never been truly investigated, and now with Saakashvili as the appointed governor of Odessa it is not likely to be either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:21 AM

9. And you know this how?

Oh, wait......................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:31 AM

17. you mean the investigation

 

That showed people on the rooftops firing weapons at the Ukrainians marching down the street for their soccer team?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:19 AM

8. Who "knew" from day 1?

This is Russian propaganda, put out by a Russian owned "news" source, attempting to pin the blame where it doesn't lie, posted here by a member with an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:29 AM

15. Good you buy your propaganda

I buy the facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:32 AM

19. facts invented by Putin and only put out by his two government

 

Owned news sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:34 AM

22. Facts From sputnik news?

A wholly created and owned Russian govt propaganda machine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:57 AM

84. German TV came to the same conclusion over a year ago...

Where have you been?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattSh (Reply #84)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:58 AM

85. Based on what? eom.

Others have come to far different conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattSh (Reply #84)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 12:56 PM

89. Facts?

On site investigations.

Talking to people involved.

Forensic tests.

Clear evidence of cover-ups.

Clear evidence that Kiev doesn't want the truth to come out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:17 AM

6. Here's Dr. Katchanovski's Bio.

http://uottawa.academia.edu/IvanKatchanovski

I
van Katchanovski
1.9 |
University of Ottawa | Université d'Ottawa, School of Political Studies, Department Member
|
Political Science
+87
Ivan Katchanovski teaches at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. He was Visiting Scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Politics at the State University of New York at Potsdam, Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto, and Kluge Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. He received his Ph.D. from the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University.
Supervisors: Seymour Martin Lipset



http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3072300142/katchanovski-ivan-1967.html

Katchanovski, Ivan 1967-
PERSONAL:

Born September 11, 1967, in Lutsk, Ukraine; son of Sophia Katchanovski. Ethnicity: "Ukrainian." Education: National University of Economics, diploma, 1990; Central European University, diploma (with merit), 1993; George Mason University, M.A., 1996, Ph.D., 2002. Hobbies and other interests: Dancing, traveling.
ADDRESSES:

Home—Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Office—Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, Canada. E-mail—ivan.katchanovski@utoronto.ca.
CAREER:

Academic. Volyn State University, Lutsk, Ukraine, lecturer, 1993-94; United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC, research assistant, 1996; George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, research assistant, 1997-2001, adjunct professor, 2002-04; Smith College, Northampton, MA, research associate, 2001—; Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Kluge postdoctoral fellow, 2002-03; University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, postdoctoral fellow, 2005—. John Olin junior faculty fellow, 1994, and Humane Studies fellow, 1997-98, both Institute for Humane Studies; Lubin-Winant research fellow, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, 2005. …


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:22 AM

10. Sounds thoroughly quallified . . .

 

Thank you for preempting the likely attempts by others to indulge in attacks on his reputation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:25 AM

11. His credentials don't mean squat,

especially when sputnik news is involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:27 AM

13. Enough with the baseless character assassinations, GG . . .

 

Your act is wearing thin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:36 AM

23. And you are......................? eom.

Anyone who does a piece for Sputnik News, along with those that constantly post it here are suspect IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:25 AM

36. ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF SOMETHING?

 

If so, have the honesty to say so outright.

BTW: I used all caps in the title line because I have called you out several times before, and you have never answered directly regarding what it is you are suggesting. Perhaps all caps will make my question understandable to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:27 AM

40. When one posts nothing but Russian propaganda, using nothing but

Russian created and owned "news" sources, then that leads one to wonder what one's true agenda here is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:37 AM

47. ONE LAST TIME . . .

 

Are you going have the honesty of your convictions and tell me what you are trying to suggest, or just continue to indulge in the cowardly practice of character assassination by innuendo?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:40 AM

49. I've made my position very clear about the sources you use,

so tell us what your true agenda is here.
Tell us why the only sources you use for your threads are Russian created, owned and operated by the Russian govt?
Why won't you use sources that aren't connected to the Russian govt.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:51 AM

56. I use the sources I find useful . . .

 

Russia's news services are valuable, I believe, in providing some balance to the pervasive flood of anti-Russian and pro-conflict drivel pumping out 24/7 by our Western mass media.

My purpose is, simply put, to do what I can to prevent a one-sided telling of world events from pushing our country into another, or several more, bloody, destructive and unnecessary wars. My goal is the eventual reining-in of the MIC controlled foreign policy which threatens to cripple and weaken the United States of America for generations to come.


And, BTW: You still dodged answering my question. Do I have to use all caps in my message text as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #56)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:04 AM

63. Your purpose here is to push pro Russian propaganda via

Russian owned and operated "news" sources, Sputnik "news" and RT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:07 AM

67. ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR?

 

Answer directly, or I can only assume that you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:09 AM

69. Take it however you want, but the evidence is clear

about your agenda here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #69)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:13 AM

71. That is enough . . .

 

You, sir, are nothing but a vicious, character-assassinating Troll. Your masters should be ashamed to employ you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #71)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:27 AM

78. Masters? LOL.

Well, I do have a master, that would be my wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #56)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:23 PM

102. Bias of course, dictates one states as much if not actually believe it.

"Russia's news services are valuable..."
Bias of course, dictates one states myopia is valuable, regardless of whether one actually believes it or not.. regardless of the petulance of caps usage.

"My goal is the eventual reining-in of the MIC..."
Creative allegation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:02 PM

98. OK. So you agree with the New York Post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:33 AM

20. You illustrate the point I made earlier about "attack the messenger" responses.

If you have something substantive to say, say it. We'd like to hear another point of view about this subject. Otherwise, save it. We all know what you think about this source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:38 AM

24. Anything coming from Sputnik News,

a wholly created and owned Russian propaganda machine is highly suspect and those that use it as their only source to post pro Russian propaganda here is also highly suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:38 PM

90. It's often a choice between fallacies.

Ad hominem vs. appeal to authority.

The same coin, just obverse and reverse sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #90)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:31 PM

92. Logical fallacies are the Coin of the Realm. Both realms. All realms.

When you get down to it, political power is public communication of applied fallacy. Power is an accepted Fiction.

But, your formulation is more elegant. Double-plus good. It's enough to drive one to Victory Gin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:30 AM

16. Qualified, but not necessarily unbiased. But, who is?

I have the feeling this is seen as an untouchable "third-rail" subject of study, instant death to most American academics and journalistic careers in the United States. Hence, this guy is Ukrainian and works in Canada. If you can post corroborating evidence from another source, that might help get past the "attack the messenger" responses you often get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:33 AM

21. very true, thanks

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:39 AM

25. Very well put,

but I highly doubt you'll see the OP post another news source, sputnik news or RT is almost his exclusively go to sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:42 AM

26. "Research" proves lol whut?

 

The Putin-admiration society on DU is curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:50 AM

27. Says Sputnik News...

 

Find me a corroborating story that is NOT from RT or Sputnik, and is a REPUTABLE news source (ie, not "Bob's Blog". That's all I ask. If you can provide that, then there MIGHT be some truth to this. My cursory search just turned up this and RT, however. And the Russian govt is the LAST people I'd believe in regards to this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:19 AM

31. The academic who led this investigation is employed by the University of Ottawa . . .

 

Look to his publications for that institution for all the links you need.


BTW: I find your blanket condemnation of all Russian news sources appalling (from a liberal point of view). You should really check yourself in regard to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:22 AM

34. From a liberal point of view,

 

I find all government propaganda appalling. Like I said, link to a reputable news source (ie, NOT Russian government propaganda), or there's nothing to believe. Russia is accused of being the aggressor here. Russia's state owned news releases this article saying "nah-ah, it was them who did it". Kind of like the downed plane fiasco. Every Russian source says "they did it, not us". Nearly every other source says "Russia did it".

Check yourself, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:27 AM

39. Propaganda from all governments . . .

 

Or just that from governments you have biases against?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:30 AM

43. The difference here that most western news sources aren't wholly created, owned and operated

by western govts,, however, on the other hand, sputnik news and rt, your exclusively go to sources, are wholly created, owned and operated by the Russian govt to spread Russian govt propaganda, therefore it's safe to wonder what your true agenda here on DU is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:42 AM

50. They are mostly created, owned and operated by Western investers

 

Who think it is ok to lie for profit, and who have a long and illustrious of history of lying to support right wing dictators like Pinochet, Samoza, Batista, The military dictatorship of 1970s Argentina, the Shah of Iran and Suharto.

Not to mention right wing policies like social security privatization, no minimum wage, no food regulation, austerity, school privatization, and privatized health insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:45 AM

52. Which is not the same as Sputnik News or RT, both of whom were created by the Kremlin

to spread, via their paid trolls, propaganda throughout the west.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #52)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:58 AM

59. So nobody pays Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly

 

Yeah right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:06 AM

66. The American govt created and run Rush and Bill?

When did that happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:13 AM

70. The government isn't the only source of propaganda

 

and as an American I know how destructive corporate media propaganda can be to the interests of the average American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:26 AM

77. If you from Russia, you might think so

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:39 AM

48. Propaganda from all governments.

 

It just happens to be that RT and Sputnik are posted here on DU a LOT. Don't really see much from Korean Central News Agency, Xinhua News Agency, IRNA, et al here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 12:50 PM

88. Not sure the identity of the snipers has been otherwise established. Links?

I've seen assertions relying upon anonymous Western and Ukranian sources that the snipers and firebombers were security forces, but that hasn't been presented in a coherent or convincing fashion. If someone has a reliable source, I would surely like to see it. In the meantime, I think other points of view should be considered and debated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:09 AM

28. The study proved what its author has been preaching for months. How convenient.

Right wingers always have 'studies' that 'prove' that global warming is a liberal conspiracy theory or that cutting taxes on the rich really does help the middle class. "Studies" that "prove" what its authors want them to "prove" are not particularly credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:15 AM

29. This otherwise unimpeachable investigation refutes what you choose to believe . . .

 

Therefore it is equivalent to "'studies' that 'prove' that global warming is a liberal conspiracy theory." Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:20 AM

32. What makes you think, this is an "unimpeachable investigation"???

Was the study peer-reviewed prior to publication?
Did someone check whether the 183 sources cited in the study actually say what the author claims they say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:30 AM

42. Because I have yet to see anything remotely like actual criticism of this study . . .

 

Baseless character assassination is not, of course, really criticism, and it is not worthy of posting her on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:37 AM

46. You do obviously not understand how publishing in science works.

First someone writes the study.
Then someone else double-checks the study. And the author doesn't get to know who is doing the double-checking. (Sometimes the referees don't even know whose study they are double-checking.)
And THEN it gets published.

I have no reason to believe that this study was checked for mistakes or misleadings.

No peer-review, no credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:02 PM

99. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association

Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Assoc., as the face page states.

If this paper was presented at the September APSA conference, it will likely be read and possibly cited by other members. But, that is not the same thing as "peer-reviewed". Nonetheless, this appears to be an impressive body of work. Worth reading, at least as one point of view.

http://tpo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:26 AM

37. It does not 'refute' what I believe; it 'proves' what the author chooses to believe.

'Studies' that confirm pre-existing biases do not 'prove' that the bias is true. That is as true of this study as it is of those the right uses to refute global warming and to support tax cuts for the rich.

What makes this study "unimpeachable" in your view? Because it confirms what you (and the authorities in Moscow) 'know' to be true?

The Berkut was hardly a blameless security force.

The main stated purpose (in Ukraine) of the national special force was crowd control; however, the Berkut have also been accused of taking part in racketeering, and of terrorizing, attacking, and torturing Ukrainian citizens, including in recent years voters who would elect non-Yanukovych candidates to local governments and had a well-documented history of kidnapping, attack, and torture of protesters including during Euromaidan and to a lesser extent the Orange Revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkut_%28special_police_force%29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:17 AM

30. Just an example why you should be careful when a russian news-source quotes someone:

http://www.huffingtonpost.de/boris-reitschuster/putin-zdf-doku_b_8854296.html

The german, publicly-owned TV-channel ZDF made a documentary about Putin. Among the content of the documentary was a 27yo Russian (interviewed in Moscow) who told ZDF how the russian military is active in Ukraine.

The documentary was met with a russian whirlwind of accusations and denouncement. The Russian was dragged in front of the cameras of russian TV-channels, renounced his testimony and told how the ZDF bribed him and staged everything. The ZDF stands by its reporting.

The documentary was dragged through the mud in russian media: how it's awful, how it's full of lies, how it failed to attract viewers (which is demonstrably false) ... All the while neglecting to talk about the facts and accusations in the documentary.




Why am I bringing this up?

Boris Reitschuster, a german journalist famous for being critical of Russia, was mentioned on russian TV as a co-producer of the documentary... which is demonstrably false.
Russian TV brought up a quote of something critical he had said about Russia... except that the first half of this "quote" was entirely made up.

And you know what else is funny? All the outrage about the "lie" that russian military is in Ukraine? Putin later admitted that russian military personell is militarily active in Ukraine but refused to go into the details.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12054164/Vladimir-Putins-annual-press-conference-2015-live.html



----------------------------

Here's the study btw
http://www.stelling.nl/divers/Maidan_2014.pdf
https://blog.fanfiktion.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_Paper-libre.pdf

As you can see, it's self-published, which means we don't know if it was reviewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:21 AM

33. This OP is not about your topic . . .

 

Please start your own OP if you wish to discuss those matters. Your trying to do so here only disrupts the current discussion.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:23 AM

35. I am merely warning against taking state-sponsored russian news at face-value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:32 AM

44. Don't take any news reporting "at face value" . . .

 

Always question and never allow yourself to be completely convinced by any of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:35 AM

45. You would do well to take your own advice,

because you believe anything that comes out of Moscow via sputnik news and rt and you vigorously defend them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:27 AM

38. Blog.FanFiktion?

 

That pretty much sums it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:45 AM

53. It's really bad, but not in the way you think.

"Google Scholar" is a search-engine that only delivers hits from websites that publish scientific papers.

I entered the title of the study... and I got 2 hits. One is this blog and the other one looks like a weird... blog. A dutch blog.
http://www.stelling.nl/

Now...

1. Why THE F**K would a respected professor from Ottawa publish his ground-breaking study on an obscure dutch website, instead of, say, his homepage?
2. Why did he publish it in an informal manner? Why didn't he submit it for review and publishing to a journal of political science?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:50 AM

55. Self-publication in any sort of research is generally a negative thing.

 

One step below pay-to-play. My guess is he KNOWS his study is flawed, and doesn't want it ripped apart. So quietly release it in some Dutch blog, then RT/Sputnik picks it up, touts it as fact, and the proles lap it up without bothering to check any of the facts surrounding it's publication.

Of course, there's the possibility that the respected professor did not actually write it and knows nothing about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:06 PM

100. Not-self published. Presented at a major conference, and posted by The Netherlands Post Online.

There's something there, here. Why not read it and come back with a substantive comment on the merits?

http://tpo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:00 PM

97. The paper is not all that impressive

It is poorly written and in the summary in the beginning contains leading comments like:

On November 19, 2014, the Prosecutor General Office claimed during its pressconference
devoted to this issue that their extensive investigation produced no evidence of
“snipers” at the Hotel Ukraina, Zhovtnevyi Palace and other locations controlled by Maidan.
However, no evidence has been made public in support of such findings, with the exception of
videos that show them shooting with AKMs.


Seriously - he is arguing that it is problematic that there is no evidence in support of something they say their investigation found no evidence of. He then speaks of "missing" evidence. It is also frustrating to read because of things like dates without the year and references to the "Ukrainian government" when it is not clear which Ukrainian government.

As to critical analysis, here is part of his proof -- note the op regularly cites the western media as not covering any of this correctly -- yet, articles in exactly those sources are listed as his proof.

However, a Reuters investigation uncovered that the prosecution case against three
Berkut members charged with the killings primarily relied on videos and photos, and some key
pieces of such evidence were misrepresented or ignored.12 Monitor, a German TV program,
presented evidence during its investigation that shooters were based in the Hotel Ukraina and
that the government investigation was manipulated.13 Investigative reports by the BBC and
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung almost a year after the massacre confirmed the presence of
armed protesters at the Music Conservatory and their shooting of the police at Maidan.14 A New
York Times investigation concluded that the police forces and Yanukovych himself fled because
of their fear that protesters could use weapons that were seized during the attacks on the police
and SBU headquarters in several regions of Western Ukraine.15 However, they did not produce
similar investigations into the killings of the protesters and assumed that the police massacred the
protesters in reaction to the killing of the policemen. Similarly, the Daily Beast reports that
presented videos and photos of the armed SBU Alfa unit are proof that the Alfa snipers killed the
protesters, even though the photos and videos were made at the SBU headquarters after the
massacre had already unfolded.


Note that this is all the prequel to his study, which he describes as follows:


This study relies on the rational choice theoretical framework and the Weberian theory of
rational action, and it employs interpretative and content analyses of a variety of sources. The
rational choice theory views people as acting in a calculated and self-interested manner.17
However, rational choice assumes that people have perfect information to make such decisions
and that all of their actions are rational. In contrast, the Weberian theory of social action regards
instrumentally-rational type of action as one ideal type of action alongside value-rational,
traditional and affectual types of action, and that such actions can be interpreted and understood
by scholars. The instrumentally rational type of aМtion involves “the attainment oП the aМtor’s
own rationallв pursueН anН МalМulateН enНs.”


So, in essence, what follows is based on BOTH his view of the facts - which are even from his summary - are still in question. What is clear is that he really has no new proof of anything -- and does not claim to. Any model is only as good as the assumptions and the degree to which it fits reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #97)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:14 PM

101. It's the most thorough study of its kind that I have seen. If there's something better, please link

Until then, I wouldn't say it's significant that this conference paper is written in an academic style, and explains it's academic POV (which is itself a convention of such papers, and the POV is conventional for Poli Sc.) All academic papers state their chosen theoretical perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #101)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:08 PM

111. True, but the very paper disputes the claims of the OP and his Russian source

1) The media did not clearly assign blame - they reported that both sides blamed each other. (That was what I had remembered and the various quotes to western media from the paper show there were reports that blamed the protesters.

2) I have no problem with the paper explaining the choice of models used. By POV, I was referring to what seemed to me to be a biased description of the known "facts". These - in addition to the theoretical models - influence the results.

3) the OP and his source claims this "proves" it was the protesters who shot people - not the government. This really overstates what the model did.

As to something better, I have not looked or seen anything that addresses the question and attempts to take all the independent primary sources of information into account -- and this does not attempt to do that. Most of the best reporting done reported claims from both sides and gave whatever supporting information they had.

I would guess that there will eventually be a good study of what happened, but, like with many historical reports, it might be decades before a definitive history is written about this --- and even then, there are likely to be people on both sides.

Unfortunately, there were people capable of doing something as deplorable as this on both sides. Personally, I don't have a strong belief that either side did it, but I have a very strong rejection of taking the various Putin sources as credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #111)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:24 PM

114. I don't see any such internal contradictions.

I'll respond to your points in order.

1) The media did not clearly assign blame - they reported that both sides blamed each other. (That was what I had remembered and the various quotes to western media from the paper show there were reports that blamed the protesters.

The overall impression given by the western media is that snipers supporting the regime attacked and massacred peaceful demonstrators. That is shown to be untrue, and those reports that confirm it are cited. Reports were mixed. The better newspapers reported both sides using violence accusing each other about who the snipers were working for.

2) I have no problem with the paper explaining the choice of models used. By POV, I was referring to what seemed to me to be a biased description of the known "facts". These - in addition to the theoretical models - influence the results.
I have rarely read a paper in the field of political science that does not have detectable biases. The only ones that don't have a point of view and prove to be neutral are essentially meaningless.

3) the OP and his source claims this "proves" it was the protesters who shot people - not the government. This really overstates what the model did.
That's for the author's colleagues to show, or claim they can show by their own sources and methods. I suspect that we are both able to read this for ourselves and pick up on biases and omissions. But, that doesn't refute the study.

As to something better, I have not looked or seen anything that addresses the question and attempts to take all the independent primary sources of information into account -- and this does not attempt to do that. Most of the best reporting done reported claims from both sides and gave whatever supporting information they had.
So, we are both in agreement on that. The subject needs far more and better analysis. Same thing with the similar precedent of the "third force" snipers in Libya and Syria. Looks like the same sort of provocation.

I would guess that there will eventually be a good study of what happened, but, like with many historical reports, it might be decades before a definitive history is written about this --- and even then, there are likely to be people on both sides.
Agreed.

Unfortunately, there were people capable of doing something as deplorable as this on both sides.
I very strongly agree with you on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:28 AM

41. SPUTNIK!!!!!!!!!!!

 

DRINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:45 AM

51. Drink deep, drink often.

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:48 AM

54. Who were the peers reviewing this study?

TIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:57 AM

57. That is beyond the scope of this chat board discussion . . .

 

If you have a deep curiosity about such things, look that information up yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:01 AM

60. Your response indicates you already know

that the answer to that question isn't to your advantage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:21 AM

73. In your imagination, perhaps . . .

 

I have not even heard of the good Doctor's study until I posted about it here.

Try not to let your biases run away with you so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:04 AM

61. This is the only report of the study, and it's a summary.

How would one "look up that information" if it's not been made available, even by the "researcher"? If no one can see the methodology of the actual study, and no suggestion has been made that it's been released to any other academics, how would a review be possible?

Upthread you noted that the study is "otherwise unimpeachable". Other than what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:08 AM

68. LOL.

Your response right here says all we need to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:17 AM

72. The scope of this discussion includes the credibility of the study.

1. When you download it from here http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245 you can clearly see that this was a conference-paper, not a published paper. Hence, we have no idea what kind of peer-review was used or whether peer-review was used at all. Also, the study does NOT note how it was published in some conference-proceedings.

2. There are two versions of this study: One with 343 references (see above) and one with 183 references (published on an obscure dutch website).


There is no evidence that this study was peer-reviewed. The unorthodox manner in which the study was published is even an indication that peer-review was intentionally avoided by the author.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #72)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:22 AM

74. As I said . . .

 

Look it up yourself. I am not paid to post here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #74)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:29 AM

79. As I said...

The manners in which the two versions of the study were published
1. make it impossible to know whether there was peer-review or not
2. are an indication that peer-review was intentionally avoided before publishing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #74)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:37 AM

82. Your interlocutor just did. Kudos to him/her.

Might I suggest that you read it before deflecting valid questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #72)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:02 PM

110. Both versions are 79 pages (excepting the face page) and have 343 footnotes. How do they differ?

This is a posted academic paper presented at the American Political Science Association meeting in September, 2015. Such papers are read and may be cited by others. They are generally not peer-reviewed until they are published in an academic journal. But, that does not make this invalid. Indeed, if this paper was utter rubbish, it probably would already have been discredited as such.

Therefore, as the most exhaustive study of its type, read it and comment on the substance. Please desist from ad hominem attacks.

You are already shown to be factually in error. The two (substantially identical) versions:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245
http://tpo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference.pdf

(BTW: From all appearances, tpo.nl isn't an obscure blog. So, your characterization is wrong again).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #110)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:23 PM

113. I see. I had read the 2014-versions the 2015-version mentions on its title-page.

Nevertheless, I reserve the right to attack the validity of a paper ad hominem until the paper meets the quality-standards that all other published scientific papers are subjected to.

Until then, I will treat this study for what it is right now: The unverified claims of a single author.



Just because somebody of authority says something, that doesn't make it true. There is no one-time test that declares something "true" forever. Scientific truth means that a claim must be proven to agree with an experimental observation with a considerable statistical significance every single time somebody checks that claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #113)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:33 PM

115. You are free to do what you want. But, I think you have fundamentally misread it.

This is a political science study that looks at the preponderance of the evidence. It does not claim to find verified "truth" beyond any reasonable doubt - that would be entirely unscientific and probably not that meaningful, as it largely relies upon the reported testimony of eyewitnesses and interpretation of others, which can be fallible. But, it does do a reasonably good job of rounding up the available evidence.

You appear to be trying to apply a standard of proof that's inappropriate to the subject matter, There probably will be no one-time test or treatment that can be applied to contentious events like this. You can draw your own conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:58 AM

58. It's long past time ...

 

To send you packing ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #58)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:05 AM

64. Agreed.

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #58)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:05 AM

65. Somewhere out west? (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #58)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:23 AM

76. That's your opinion . . .

 

And that is all it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #76)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:31 AM

80. I certainly don't want you sent packing,

I want all to see just what your true agenda here is, which has become clearer by the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:36 AM

81. SputnikNews

because RT wasn't pro-Putin enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:38 AM

83. Here's a link to his study:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #83)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 12:06 PM

86. Thank you . . .

 

At least some of those who have already condemned and dismissed it due to their personal biases may take you up on that (as well as many others who are genuinely intrigued to see what it actually says).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #86)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 12:10 PM

87. The question still stands,

was it peer reviewed by an independent panel of researchers?
If not, why not?
And the more compelling question is, why would you use a Russian owned and controlled propaganda source for this thread?
Are there any other less biased sources out there?
What is your true motive for constantly using Russian propaganda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #87)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:49 PM

94. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association

If this paper was presented at the September APSA conference, it will likely be read and possibly cited by other members. But, that is not the same thing as "peer-reviewed". Nonetheless, this appears to be an impressive body of work. Worth reading, at least as one point of view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #94)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:30 PM

105. Thank you . . .

 

Once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #87)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:23 PM

103. Trolls gotta troll, troll, troll . . .

 

Right, GG?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #86)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:04 PM

91. Is it beyond the scope of this conversation, or is it not?

At the very least, I'd think that someone stating that it is an "otherwise unimpeachable investigation" would read it. It takes some moxie to point at others and shout "BIAS" when this entire OP and your contributions stem from nothing but.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #91)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:29 PM

104. I am not about to get into an argument about "peer review" and such . . .

 

The lead researcher's academic credentials seem quite beyond reproach, that is good enough for me (and should certainly be for a chat board format). If you wish to delve deeper into the accompanying minutia, I encourage you to do so. For me, on the other hand, "Life is too short."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #104)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:36 PM

107. And there you have it:

"Never mind."

You own this massive failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #107)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:42 PM

108. "Massive failure" is only in the eyes of the beholder . . .

 

At least in this case it certainly is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #83)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:42 PM

93. You can get the article direct as a pdf without registration here:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #93)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:53 PM

95. Downloading a pdf off an unknown website? Great idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #95)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:59 PM

96. tpo.nl domain is The Netherlands Post Online.

My computer has not started popping up little Green Men or Putins. No worries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:47 PM

109. Limiting data and analysis selection to publication which inherently validate your own conclusions

Limiting data and analysis selection to publication which inherently validate your own conclusions is by its very definition, bias.

However, I completely understand the schools of thought which may entertain such pretenses. Journalists investigation into the leaked information found that the pro-Kremlin movement had been engaging in all kinds of digital activities, including paying commentators to post content and hijacking blog ratings ( "Kremlin's Blogshop" by Anastasia Karimova, Izvestia) and that a Freedom House report stated that Russia has been using paid commentators to manipulate online discussions and has been at the forefront of this practice for several years (Russia's Online-Comment Propaganda Army, The Atlantic, by Olga Khazan)

Further investigations were performed by Novaya Gazeta and Institute of Modern Russia in 2014–15, inspired by the peak of activity of the pro-Russian brigades during war in Donbass and assassination of Boris Nemtsov. The effort of using "troll armies" to promote Putin's policies is a multimillion-dollar operation. According to The Guardian investigation the flood of pro-Russian comments is part of a coordinated "informational-psychological war operation". One Twitter bots network was documented to use over 20'500 fake Twitter accounts to spam hateful comments after assassination of Boris Nemtsov and events related to the war in Donbass (Lawrence Alexander's "Social Network Analysis Reveals Full Scale of Kremlin's Twitter Bot Campaign)

Stated much better than I could, "The effect created by such Internet trolls is not very big, but they manage to make certain forums meaningless because people stop commenting on the articles when these trolls sit there and constantly create an aggressive, hostile atmosphere toward those whom they don’t like. The trolls react to certain news with torrents of mud and abuse. This makes it meaningless for a reasonable person to comment on anything there..." ("Internet Troll Operation Uncovered in St. Petersburg", The St. Petersburg Times, by Sergey Chernov).

Udači!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #109)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:08 PM

112. Sputnik didn't publish this. It's merely picking up (3 mos. late) on an academic paper posted by a

seemingly reputable academic with good credentials who posted his paper at the American Political Science Association meeting held in September. We all know what Sputnik is, but that doesn't detract from the validity of the original 79 page paper. Or, does it?

Read the paper and comment on it's substance, or is that unimportant?

http://tpo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread