More Propaganda from the NY Times.

[dystopian]

At a minimum, the parliament did not have a quorum so they could not conduct business.

Nonsense. There were 330 members of parliament present for the vote; which is more than enough to conduct the business of parliament. You're grasping at straws.

I do not know the constitutional procedures for ousting a Ukrainian president but it almost surely calls for something more than a majority vote of the parliament. That's how you oust a premier, not a president.

Lolwut? Yes, a majority vote is really all that's required. Since he fled the country, he was no longer able to fulfill his duties and thus he was able to be ousted from the position.

Your statement here is a malicious slander and totally uncalled for. It also untrue.

No, it is completely accurate, totally called for, and entirely true.

I never said that the Crimean referendum was a proper democratic procedure. I said it was impossible to judge that. I only said that such a referendum would likely have passed in a democratic procedure.

Bullshit, you have repeatedly referred to it as the will of the Crimean people, you have repeatedly defended its legitimacy. And then there's the complete hypocrisy in saying "it's impossible to judge whether it was a proper democratic procedure", and then in the *next fucking sentence* you say "But it likely would have!". Your protestation means nothing.

Even given what you claim, the Kiev regime is not a successor state since it does not control its own people. It does not control Crimea, and it does not control the eastern provinces. It controls the capital city and does not, apparently, face resistance in the west but its status is still very much up in the air.

All of which, unsurprisingly, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Whether a successor state 'controls its own people' or not is completely and entirely irrelevant to whether or not it is considered a successor state. It is similarly completely irrelevant whether or not it occupies the entirety of the former state's territory. If as in my example, the tea party violently overthrew the US government, but then California declared independence, it wouldn't fucking matter because the remaining US would still be the successor state.

One of the conditions for it to be a successor state is that it be recognized by the international community and that includes Russia.

Hahaha no.

I mean holy shit, you think that's an actual argument?! EVEN if there had to be a *universal* consensus among the international community (which is utter nonsense); you're seriously trying to claim that motherfucking *Russia*, the country that *started* this shit and pulled a sudetenland, needs to sign off on it?

Hahaha no.

But Russia hasn't done so and neither has China or India which are backing Russia in this matter.

...no.

Neither of those countries are 'backing' Russia. You may have noticed that China refused to side with Russia in the security council vote criticizing crimea's secession. China most certainly does NOT support Russia; in fact it is blatantly obvious to anyone with even the slightest of political comprehension that China has been trying very hard to be neutral. India has actually offered something approaching political support, but it's token support at best and represents a similar tightrope balancing act

That's close to half the world's population right there.

And you might have a point if A) China and India didn't recognize Ukraine (they do), B) they offered actual support to Russia (they don't), and C) the 'international community' and the 'world's population' were the same thing (they're not).

As I have said, those issues are still very much up in the air.

No. They're not. Stomp your feet on the ground and stick your fingers in your ears all you want.

 

[ksen]

I would never have taken Bill for a Russophile.

 

[Togo]

I'm not sure he is. He's just found serious inaccuracies in the way US media portrays events, and is excitedly drawing the wrong conclusion. Rather than realising that the US media is simplistic and slanted, and that he needs to get an independent picture, he's concluded that they must be covering up the truth, done a quick search for an alternate version, and come up with an alternative narrative slanted the other way, courtesy of Russian State Television.

The real lesson is to find out the facts for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Many people here would probably agree with him on themes of US culpability, US media bias, and so on. It's just the parroting of Russian propaganda that's causing him trouble.

 

[barbos]

I'm not sure he is. He's just found serious inaccuracies in the way US media portrays events,

You meant lies, right?

 

[Sabine Grant]

I'm not sure he is. He's just found serious inaccuracies in the way US media portrays events,

You meant lies, right?

I suppose one could also use the term "lies" regarding Russian propaganda being exposed by SF,

http://www.stopfake.org/en/news

Of course acknowledging the above would require the willingness to be evenhanded.

 

[funinspace]

First off hang on, supporting terrorism? You can say that funelling resources to insurgents against another government isn't a nice thing to do, and it isn't. But that's not the same as supporting terrorism.

Insurgent, terrorists, or was it rebels the labels gets so confusing…
http://www.newsweek.com/mosul-now-h...st-take-over-iraqs-second-biggest-city-254427
'Mosul Now Is Like Hell': Thousands Flee Terrorist Takeover of Iraq's Second Biggest City’

The US supported insurgents following the start of the civil war; <snip>…

Well, yes the US narrative is that we stepped in to help the emergent revolution. And that certainly makes the US actions seem better. However, it does seem there are quite a few reports that suggest that the US (and others) were present for the birth of this “civil war”. Of course the US would never do something like help start a civil war, or conspire with other countries to do so…

Gadhafi was on the run by the end of August, so US buddy Qatar was already sending weapons before late August 2011. When did they actually start sending weapons? Maybe we will get to see the CIA files in 20-30 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/w...ebels-qatar-muscles-in.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Qatar’s covert efforts to back the Syrian rebels began at the same time that it was increasing its support for opposition fighters in Libya trying to overthrow the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Its ability to be an active player in a global gray market for arms was enhanced by the C-17 military transport planes it bought from Boeing in 2008, when it became the first nation in the Middle East to have the durable, long-range aircraft.

Known shipments by Jan 2012:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/14/us-syria-qatar-support-idUSBRE94D0GT20130514

Shipments of weapons to Syrian rebels were curbed last year when Washington raised concerns that arms were falling into the hands of groups like Jabhat al-Nusra.

Today, Qatari shipments have resumed with tighter controls exerted from the palace of Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, in consultation with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, said a senior Qatari security official.

<snip>
"There's a lot of consultation with the CIA, and they help Qatar with buying and moving the weapons into Syria, but just as consultants," he said. The CIA declined to comment.

Rebel commanders contacted by Reuters said they submit their lists of needs to the General Command led by Idriss, which forwards the requests to Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

One Western source involved in the process said the new system of control is not foolproof: sometimes weapons sent in by Qatar do in fact reach hardline groups.
According to the Qatari official, weapons supplied included small arms including AK-47 rifles, rocket propelled grenades, hand grenades and ammunition. Qatar also provides instructions on battlefield techniques such as how to rig weapons on vehicles.

The weapons are purchased mainly from eastern Europe by arms brokers based in Britain and France, and are flown from Qatar to Ankara and then trucked to Syria, the Qatari source added.

Hugh Griffiths, a researcher on arms transfers at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said 90 Qatari military air cargo flights were made to Turkey between 3 January 2012 and the end of April 2013.

Another site that suggests weapons were being shipped in May of 2011; but yeah the State Dept narrative is probably more true...:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/201...upport-camp-to-oust-current-syrian-president/

The joint US-NATO secret training camp in the US air force base in Incirlik, Turkey, began operations in April- May 2011 to organize and expand the dissident base in Syria. Since then, in addition to Col. Riad al-Assad, several other high-ranking Syrian military and intelligence officials have been added to operations’ headquarters in the US base. Weekly weapons smuggling operations have been carried out with full NATO-US participation since last May.

And wow, a month later significant armed rebellions began…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

Significant armed rebellion against the state began on 4 June in Jisr al-Shugur, a city in Idlib Governorate near the Turkish border.

 

[dystopian]

Insurgent, terrorists, or was it rebels the labels gets so confusing…
http://www.newsweek.com/mosul-now-h...st-take-over-iraqs-second-biggest-city-254427
'Mosul Now Is Like Hell': Thousands Flee Terrorist Takeover of Iraq's Second Biggest City’

Okay, what does this have to do with Syria? Mosul is in Iraq. If the city was taken by an Al Qaeda splinter group, then while it isn´t necessarily technically true that they are terrorists, they are certainly terrorist-affiliated, so I´m not sure what issue you´re taking with the labelling there.

Well, yes the US narrative is that we stepped in to help the emergent revolution. And that certainly makes the US actions seem better. However, it does seem there are quite a few reports that suggest that the US (and others) were present for the birth of this “civil war”. Of course the US would never do something like help start a civil war, or conspire with other countries to do so…

Unverified reports, from what I can gather; hardly factual. Yes, if true it'd be concerning, and it's worth investigating. However, even if it were true that the US was trying to inspire a revolution against an autocratic regime; that's *very different* from Russia's actions.

Gadhafi was on the run by the end of August, so US buddy Qatar was already sending weapons before late August 2011. When did they actually start sending weapons? Maybe we will get to see the CIA files in 20-30 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/w...ebels-qatar-muscles-in.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Qatar’s covert efforts to back the Syrian rebels began at the same time that it was increasing its support for opposition fighters in Libya trying to overthrow the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Its ability to be an active player in a global gray market for arms was enhanced by the C-17 military transport planes it bought from Boeing in 2008, when it became the first nation in the Middle East to have the durable, long-range aircraft.

Shipments of weapons to Syrian rebels were curbed last year when Washington raised concerns that arms were falling into the hands of groups like Jabhat al-Nusra.

Today, Qatari shipments have resumed with tighter controls exerted from the palace of Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, in consultation with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, said a senior Qatari security official.

I'm not sure what the relevance of any of this is. We already knew the US was shipping weapons in to help arm the opposition. There was already a civil war by this point too, so... again, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

One Western source involved in the process said the new system of control is not foolproof: sometimes weapons sent in by Qatar do in fact reach hardline groups.

Which suggests it's unintentional and that the weapons aren't meant for those hardline groups.

Another site that suggests weapons were being shipped in May of 2011; but yeah the State Dept narrative is probably more true...:

Well, if they started shipping in may 2011, then there is absolutely no conflict with the claim that they started arming the opposition *after* shit began. Protests began in January 2011, and exploded in the middle of March. So... what exactly are you trying to prove?

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/201...upport-camp-to-oust-current-syrian-president/

The joint US-NATO secret training camp in the US air force base in Incirlik, Turkey, began operations in April- May 2011 to organize and expand the dissident base in Syria. Since then, in addition to Col. Riad al-Assad, several other high-ranking Syrian military and intelligence officials have been added to operations’ headquarters in the US base. Weekly weapons smuggling operations have been carried out with full NATO-US participation since last May.

Again, that's when the shit had already started.

And wow, a month later significant armed rebellions began…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

Sure, so what? Shit was already happening for months by then, the opposition just lacked the means to effectively fight back without foreign aid. Don´t you think it´s a little dishonest to point to an article where one line taken out of context seems to support your narrative while the rest of said article supports the idea that there was already a revolution happening for months by that point? Everything you've quoted shows that the US only started supporting the opposition AFTER the Syrian government started using violence against them. If you´re trying to paint a picture of the US being responsible for starting anything, then you´re not clear on the timeline. Do you really think it was wrong to help the opposition a priori? Ignore any mistakes and unintentional or unforeseen consequences for a moment, was it morally wrong to help arm a group of people fighting against an autocratic violence-prone government to (at first) increase democratic representation? Because I don´t think it´s quite as horrible a thing as you seem to, and even if it was I don´t see how it is A) equivalent to what Russia´s done, or B) even remotely near the same level.

 

[funinspace]

Insurgent, terrorists, or was it rebels the labels gets so confusing…
http://www.newsweek.com/mosul-now-h...st-take-over-iraqs-second-biggest-city-254427
'Mosul Now Is Like Hell': Thousands Flee Terrorist Takeover of Iraq's Second Biggest City’

Okay, what does this have to do with Syria? Mosul is in Iraq. If the city was taken by an Al Qaeda splinter group, then while it isn´t necessarily technically true that they are terrorists, they are certainly terrorist-affiliated, so I´m not sure what issue you´re taking with the labelling there.

LOL…my issue was poking fun at your (possible, but I don't want to assume) irritation in your post #120 at my use of the word “terrorist” instead of “insurgent”. I found it rather ironic for a major US news outlet to announce “terrorists” taking over quite a large city. And it that just happens that ISIL is also one of the big players in the Syrian civil war…not seeming to notice the border between Syria and Iraq.