Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Research concludes the Maidan Square snipers were anti-government militants. [View all]Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
115 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Research concludes the Maidan Square snipers were anti-government militants. [View all]
another_liberal
Jan 2016
OP
You could have found a better researched "article" from counterpunch couldn't you?
snooper2
Jan 2016
#75
You illustrate the point I made earlier about "attack the messenger" responses.
leveymg
Jan 2016
#20
The academic who led this investigation is employed by the University of Ottawa . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#31
The difference here that most western news sources aren't wholly created, owned and operated
GGJohn
Jan 2016
#43
Which is not the same as Sputnik News or RT, both of whom were created by the Kremlin
GGJohn
Jan 2016
#52
The study proved what its author has been preaching for months. How convenient.
pampango
Jan 2016
#28
This otherwise unimpeachable investigation refutes what you choose to believe . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#29
Because I have yet to see anything remotely like actual criticism of this study . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#42
Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association
leveymg
Jan 2016
#99
It does not 'refute' what I believe; it 'proves' what the author chooses to believe.
pampango
Jan 2016
#37
Just an example why you should be careful when a russian news-source quotes someone:
DetlefK
Jan 2016
#30
Not-self published. Presented at a major conference, and posted by The Netherlands Post Online.
leveymg
Jan 2016
#100
It's the most thorough study of its kind that I have seen. If there's something better, please link
leveymg
Jan 2016
#101
Both versions are 79 pages (excepting the face page) and have 343 footnotes. How do they differ?
leveymg
Jan 2016
#110
I see. I had read the 2014-versions the 2015-version mentions on its title-page.
DetlefK
Jan 2016
#113
You are free to do what you want. But, I think you have fundamentally misread it.
leveymg
Jan 2016
#115
Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association
leveymg
Jan 2016
#94
I am not about to get into an argument about "peer review" and such . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#104
Limiting data and analysis selection to publication which inherently validate your own conclusions
LanternWaste
Jan 2016
#109