Russian Opposition Leader Gunned Down

[Tom Sawyer]

Of course I AM expecting the answer "No" at least from tupac chopra, which means that there's no point in discussion except convincing third parties of his and your dogmatism on the matter.

I'd prefer to follow evidence. Which probably means I'll remain agnostic about who did it.

On the other hand John Mc Cain has publicly said Putin is responsible no matter who did it

I like the way that you remain agnostic and then pick a side in the next sentence.

 

[tupac chopra]

I'd prefer to follow any evidence. Which probably means I'll remain agnostic about who did it

We were discussing more the causes of and responsibility for the Ukrainian conflict as a whole. But thanks anyway.

Well if you would be kind enough to give me a clear question I'd be more than happy to tell you what evidence I think supports any view I have or what evidence would cause to to adopt a view on these issues

- - - Updated - - -

I'd prefer to follow evidence. Which probably means I'll remain agnostic about who did it.

On the other hand John Mc Cain has publicly said Putin is responsible no matter who did it

I like the way that you remain agnostic and then pick a side in the next sentence.

I found John Mc Cains view amusing

 

[Duke Leto]

Just out of morbid curiosity to the Russophiles in the thread...

Is there hypothetically evidence that could convince you that Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine, and the current Ukrainian government is not a bunch of CIA sponsored fascists?

That is, are you even willing to entertain the possibility that you're the propaganda dupes and not us?

Just checking.

What was unclear about that question?

 

[tupac chopra]

Just out of morbid curiosity to the Russophiles in the thread...

Is there hypothetically evidence that could convince you that Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine, and the current Ukrainian government is not a bunch of CIA sponsored fascists?

That is, are you even willing to entertain the possibility that you're the propaganda dupes and not us?

Just checking.

What was unclear about that question?

Is there hypothetically evidence that could convince you that Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine,

Ok I don't think it's a question of there only being one aggressor necessarily.
I think that the US and NATO engineered a regime change in Kiev, and that Putin and other Russian politicians have been extremely open about their attitude to Ukraine having close involvement (particularly military) with NATO and the USA. They have been as I said "extremely open" . They have said "we will not stand for that". "We are not going to see the USA or NATO having any sort of military operation on our borders and in lands that are traditionally ours.

So they used the troops that were already legally in Crimea and said to the Crimeans "you guys have to make a choice now, "Either you are coming back to Russia or not." And not surprisingly Crimea overwhelmingly went back to Russia. It could be seen as an ultimatum
Bear in mind that at this time there was a government in Kiev that came to power in a violent coup.
Also bear in mind that Russia had their extremely important naval base in Crimea.
So this was an aggressive move, but it was also a response to what had happened in Kiev.
Same sort of thing applies to East Ukraine. Russia is not about to stand by and watch East Ukraine come under the control of
a)NATO
b)Neo Nazis from Ukraine.
c)The USA.
So their response has been to help them without getting into a full on war.
Russia is looking after it's interests. If you want to call that them being the aggressor then fine, but none of this happens without the coup.

and the current Ukrainian government is not a bunch of CIA sponsored fascists?

Well there are defintely a strong neo Nazi element in Ukraine if thats what you mean by fascists.

And there is defintely CIA involvement. The head of the CIA tried to sneak into Ukraine just before the offensive began on the East. But he was spotted and so his cover was blown and he had to admit he had gone there.
The only question is how much are they involved not whether they are involved.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev

 

[Duke Leto]

Yeah, you know what that post wasn't?

Demonstration of evidence for your repeated assertion that Ukraine is rife with "Neo-Nazis" or evidence of CIA involvement before Russia unilaterally violated the sovereignty of its neighbor.

When Al-Jazeera isn't going along with the Russian version of the "violent coup", you've got a credibility problem.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yeah, you know what that post wasn't?

Demonstration of evidence for your repeated assertion that Ukraine is rife with "Neo-Nazis"

There is a very active neo nazi or ultra nationalist element there. I did not realize you doubted that.
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017930...79j12#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=ukraine nazi&gsc.page=1

or evidence of CIA involvement before Russia unilaterally violated the sovereignty of its neighbor.

OK but you accept there is evidence of their involvement now?

Here is some long known about evidence of US involvement though not specifically CIA.

Chronology of the Ukrainian Coup

When Al-Jazeera isn't going along with the Russian version of the "violent coup", you've got a credibility problem.

Al- Jazeera should not be relevant. The facts should be relevant

 

[barbos]

Yeah, you know what that post wasn't?

Demonstration of evidence for your repeated assertion that Ukraine is rife with "Neo-Nazis" or evidence of CIA involvement before Russia unilaterally violated the sovereignty of its neighbor.

Before? I am glad you admit they are involved.
But I have a follow up questions Why were they involved at all?
And strictly speaking CIA is always involved, that's in their job description and no evidence is required.
Problem Russia had was with CIA director visiting Ukraine right after the coup and the subsequent "upgrade" of rebels status to terrorists.