Ukrainian Conflict

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Discussing about how current Ukrainian government is illegitimate?
Easy to sort out with an election. Not like the former leader will ever stand for office again.

Discussing about Russian geopolitical interest over Ukraine?
Nothing that Russia can't deal with peacefully. Russia decided to do it the invasive way.

Discussing about how effective Putin was on taking over Crimea?
What is there to discuss? All media is being controlled there. All we have is RT propaganda.

And I will discuss big bad Russians the same way I discuss big bad anyone else. If it walks like a quck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, I am going to call it a duck.

The invasion IS IMPORTANT. Yet so many here wants to talk about something else, like it is somehow irrelevant. Like it somehow has no effect on anything. That it is somehow NORMAL.

Once again , be frank: you think it's irrelevant. Because you know nothing about them

And unless you take a step back and do actual "discuss" the issues. And i means take in AND consider people point, rather than acting like God prophet passing out what right and wrong... let's be honest... we know that it's a waste of time here



Don't believe me in saying that you know nothing? Let's try on the first point alone then : You said an election? Not like the former leader will ever stand for office again? Then who will likely to win this coming election, may i ask? Did you say Tymoshenko, the most popular choice by miles, but also one of those corrupting former leader? That would be so justifying Putin's decision to invade Crimea. And you must know the reason why, right? Especially after the new coalition revert back to the parliament government under constitution previous to 2004 (rather than current presidential status)? And her lie promise that will definitely bring her to the office but almost impossible to carry out? Oh and the Russian will loves to see Tymoshenko on the office too, and they will be so willing, that they will withdraw from Crimea free of charge just like you requested.

Do you realise what's wrong with seeing Tymoshenko (or anyone amongst current front runner, really) on the office and Russia withdraw their "invasion" this way? Nah, it's probably irrelevant to you. Good on Ukrainian for having the next president a woman who by herself prevent the Russian invasion just like you wish. Who care about how much the country will just stay the same with corruption, bankrupt but now profound a new neo-nazi issues. It's so irrelevant, that's why

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Don't believe me in saying that you know nothing? Let's try on the first point alone then : You said an election? Not like the former leader will ever stand for office again? Then who will likely to win this coming election, may i ask? Did you say Tymoshenko, the most popular choice by miles, but also one of those corrupting former leader?

Virtually every Ukrainian political elite is more or less corrupt. But that's up to their own legal system to sort out. If their legal system and police are not able to do anything, that's still Ukraine's internal problem. Russia has absolutely no say over that, on paper at least.

That would be so justifying Putin's decision to invade Crimea.

Even Putin didn't use corrupted leaders as an excuse. You are pulling things out of thin air.

And you must know the reason why, right? Especially after the new coalition revert back to the parliament government under constitution previous to 2004 (rather than current presidential status)? And her lie promise that will definitely bring her to the office but almost impossible to carry out? Oh and the Russian will loves to see Tymoshenko on the office too, and they will be so willing, that they will withdraw from Crimea free of charge just like you requested.

Do you realise what's wrong with seeing Tymoshenko (or anyone amongst current front runner, really) on the office and Russia withdraw their "invasion" this way? Nah, it's probably irrelevant to you. Good on Ukrainian for having the next president a woman who by herself prevent the Russian invasion just like you wish. Who care about how much the country will just stay the same with corruption, bankrupt but now profound a new neo-nazi issues. It's so irrelevant, that's why

Your failed attempt to be sarcastic makes this a giant cluster of illogical confusion.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Do you realise what's wrong with seeing Tymoshenko (or anyone amongst current front runner, really) on the office and Russia withdraw their "invasion" this way? Nah, it's probably irrelevant to you. Good on Ukrainian for having the next president a woman who by herself prevent the Russian invasion just like you wish. Who care about how much the country will just stay the same with corruption, bankrupt but now profound a new neo-nazi issues. It's so irrelevant, that's why

It was not under Tymoshenko that the country's debt got exponentially bigger and that the ordinary people got poorer, just saying. Furthermore, several countries never believed in those charges. Only the future will tell, but I already smelled a disguised coup back then with those so-called charges.

If you think Yanukovich was not corrupt by any means when he apparently was quite bad on his own, then you are totally deluded.

[Fireminer]

I have a question: Has Putin try anything seriously to topple the current government? Bringing troops to Crimea won't do it, Economic Sanction won't do it.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

The problem is those all are subjective judgement. You can't say that "Well... illegitimate coup is ok as long as it does not go too far. But hey, that land grab is going too far"

Didn't say it was okay. I was saying that practically speaking, Yanuk being deposed in a questionable way by populist internal forces in his own country is not as alarming to the international community as invasion and annexation by other states. "International law" is a very finicky thing that basically comes down to "you can sort your own shit out in your borders". Because of that, there's a higher bar for "international community freaks out" for purely internal affairs in countries, and countries invading each-other.


...though honestly? The whole "illegitimacy" argument thing comes off as a bit of a red herring. If the new government isn't legitimate...then what is the practical alternative? That Yanuk be put back in power despite being ousted by a populist uprising, that the military wouldn't defend him from, and when now even his own political party has abandoned him? That's...essentially impossible at this point. Hell. Even Putin has admitted that Yanuk is effectively moot aside from still being president in some legalistic sense.


Nation states need to talk to eachother. So unless someone is planning to put Yanuk back in power by force, you don't really accomplish anything by addressing him as a head of state...well unless of course you're Russia right now and are clinging to Yanuk being your rubber stamping monkey being promised with some bannas to help justify your invasion/annexation.

Originally Posted by Fireminer

I have a question: Has Putin try anything seriously to topple the current government? Bringing troops to Crimea won't do it, Economic Sanction won't do it.

That's cause Putin ISN'T interested in toppling the current government. The illegitimacy is just being used as an excuse for a land grab.

[Fireminer]

I don't think that it's a simple land grab. Putin, after all, isn't your typical warlock. He wants to keep an united, stable Ukraine for Russia's sake. But he also don't want it to be NATO's new fortress. He won't allow the fragments of Ukraine to go with the West. It's a tactic in the 36 Stratagems. The annexian of Crimea, that is just for show.

You know, America and EU could have solved this situation long ago. Instead of making a decent explaination for Russia, all they could do is paying money and lip service for Kiev, while the leaders attacking each other.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

I don't think that it's a simple land grab. Putin, after all, isn't your typical warlock. He wants to keep an united, stable Ukraine for Russia's sake. But he also don't want it to be NATO's new fortress. He won't allow the fragments of Ukraine to go with the West. It's a tactic in the 36 Stratagems. The annexian of Crimea, that is just for show.

I'm not so sure about that. The pro-Russian Crimea faction has already started a referendum on going back to Russia. The Russian parliament has voted to allow the Crimea to do it. The ball has gotten rolling for Russia to formally annex the Crimea and...I'm not exactly sure Putin can really stop it without making himself look bad to his supporters. So right off the bat that disqualifies him from getting a united Ukraine.


And it's pretty much impossible to keep what's left of the Ukraine from becoming a pro-nato fortress. Putin just guaranteed that whatever is leftover will be permanently antagonistic to Putin since you partitioned it by force (particularly the part that was most sympathetic to Russia). The only way to this from happening in western Urkaine...would be for him to conquer it completely.


...and that last bit directly contradicts "stable ukraine". He has to fight a war to destroy the Ukraine armies hold on their half of the country...and perhaps even more problematically, there's a massive populist movement that just overthrew a government that could easily transition into a nationalistic insurgency against the Russian invasion. Things would get fucking ugly.


...especially since if Russia is launching a ground invasion into Western Urkaine, it's almost guaranteed the Polish will get involved. They are NOT going to willingly let Russia park tanks on their border with the Ukraine. And since Poland is a NATO member...that risks dragging a good chunk of Europe into conflict with Russia.

Spoiler for poland:

No. I personally think Putin has pretty much written off the western Urkaine. Doing what it takes to topple the Kiev government is too risky, and he's pretty much tossed any political compromise with them out the window. If this comes to blows, he's going to take the parts of the Ukraine that are heavily ethnically Russian and absorb them into Russia, which will secure their access to the black sea.

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

To say that this element that has taken over Ukraine is populist is a stretch.

I can't really think of any other way to describe it. It certainly wasn't a military coup, or conventional military insurgency that undertook a paramilitary campaign. These were public demonstrations against the government that got powerful enough that when the government failed to crack down on them, they managed to overthrow the government. That's not something that gets accomplished by marginalized extremists. It requires a breadth of support across a significant section of the population...it just happened that breadth of popular support also fell over some rather detestable extremist groups.


Does that mean that the Maidan uprising represents the entire country? Of course not. But things simply could not have transpired the way they did if this had just been the work of a handful of radicals.

[Irenicus]

This propaganda cesspool of a thread...

NO, UKRAINIANS ARE NOT FASCISTS BY DEFAULT. NO, THE AMERICANS ARE NOT BRILLIANT ENOUGH TO LAUNCH A COUP OUT OF NOWHERE.

And if you believe that, give me some fucking proof.

Are you people so seriously stupid that you forgot the months of struggle beforehand? The siege of the Maidan? The whole winter? The unprovoked government attack on the previously peaceful protestors that turned this fucking thing violent in the first place? Why do you think the oligarchs and the Ukrainian Parliament threw out Yanukovich? Why is it suddenly the Americans' fault? Stop making me lose faith in humanity. Putinist propaganda can't possibly be this effective.

Speaking of fascism and ethnic struggle, I wonder if anyone has a spare thought for the unfortunate Crimean Tartars...

So Sudetenland and Yugoslavia. Thanks Putin.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

If America and EU were going to they wait for legitimate elections to be held before starting to make deals and to completely understand what the people of Ukraine want.

You forgot that one little detail where Ukraine is basically bankrupt because the money all mysteriously disappeared under Yanokovych?

To say that this element that has taken over Ukraine is populist is a stretch. Much of the new government are fascists and also many in Ukraine are pro-russian, which is why we see pro-russian elements fighting back and as an internal conflict they have every right to.

You know what's even more of a stretch? trying to paint the Russian occupation as an internal conflict

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

Putin is making the prudent move here. America and the EU are trying to isolate Russia and unless he takes a stand he'll be soon trapped. While this coup might not be directly engineered by the EU or America (God forbid the freedom and democracy loving U.S and western nations which actively promote self determination would stoop to such underhanded methods but they do.), but its clear they willing to take advantage of the situation.

They might have taken advantage of the situation, but they played subtlely within the rules. That's not remotely comparable to actual military aggression and annexing land based on trumped up facts.

The real question for the EU and America isn't about international law, America breaks international law all the time and understands that international law is only an exercise in power relations, or if the current government is legitimate, but that the new government is willing to privatize and reorganize their Ukraine under the direction of the IMF and world bank. If we notice the first thing discussed between these provisional government and the EU and America was the extension of loans and terms of reorganization. This isn't as many would like you to believe as a western governments trying to help the poor struggling Ukraine but a method of indebting and integrating them to the western financial system to exploit their markets.

Ukraine is already deeply in debt before this all began. They need the money just to stay afloat. You really need some fact checking.

Much of the new government are fascists.

That's a gross exaggeration straight out of Russian propaganda. The far right Svoboda holds 36 of 450 seats in the parliament and a handful of government positions.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

It was not under Tymoshenko that the country's debt got exponentially bigger and that the ordinary people got poorer, just saying. Furthermore, several countries never believed in those charges. Only the future will tell, but I already smelled a disguised coup back then with those so-called charges.

If you think Yanukovich was not corrupt by any means when he apparently was quite bad on his own, then you are totally deluded.

Yes but the economy was also stagnated under her with barely any GDP growth. Foreign debt going from 38 to 86% of GNI. Trade balance drop from a positive 700m, down to a negative of 1.5m. And by my calculation, the 5 years she in charge, Ukraine GDP rose a total of 7.7% (or let's just average in 1.5% annually). The 3 years Yekhanurov in charge it was 5.8% (~1.9% annually). Does not have the updated income equality, but the economy situation was hardly changed much


I never said Yekhanurov not corrupted, but the Ukraine may trade a pot with a slightly more popular kettle here. Yanukovich was part of the gang during Orange revolution, and other than her clearer leaning toward the West, does not indicate that she would have done any better

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Didn't say it was okay. I was saying that practically speaking, Yanuk being deposed in a questionable way by populist internal forces in his own country is not as alarming to the international community as invasion and annexation by other states. "International law" is a very finicky thing that basically comes down to "you can sort your own shit out in your borders". Because of that, there's a higher bar for "international community freaks out" for purely internal affairs in countries, and countries invading each-other.

...though honestly? The whole "illegitimacy" argument thing comes off as a bit of a red herring. If the new government isn't legitimate...then what is the practical alternative? That Yanuk be put back in power despite being ousted by a populist uprising, that the military wouldn't defend him from, and when now even his own political party has abandoned him? That's...essentially impossible at this point. Hell. Even Putin has admitted that Yanuk is effectively moot aside from still being president in some legalistic sense.

Nation states need to talk to eachother. So unless someone is planning to put Yanuk back in power by force, you don't really accomplish anything by addressing him as a head of state...well unless of course you're Russia right now and are clinging to Yanuk being your rubber stamping monkey being promised with some bannas to help justify your invasion/annexation. That's cause Putin ISN'T interested in toppling the current government. The illegitimacy is just being used as an excuse for a land grab.

The internal coup may not as alarming to the international community, but surely as alarming toward regional politic, as proved by... what just happened. Once again it's a subjective matter. As Ukraine could headed toward Egypt direction without Russian or EU intervention, and we can't do anything more than speculate.

They could have legitimately out him and let the politic from all three sides participate in the talk for new government. The current coalition, the old government, and the third party who did not participate in the coups but would have fancy take in the seat to balance out the situation. But the coalition knew their power would be tied then, and go ahead with the populist coup in the capital, and could not care less about the rest of the country. That's why neo-fascists forces could infiltrate in the government so much, because the coalitions left no power gaps for any other sides to take parts but their ranks.

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

That's a gross exaggeration straight out of Russian propaganda. The far right Svoboda holds 36 of 450 seats in the parliament and a handful of government positions.

A handful positions? Including:

• both Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council
• Deputy Prime Minister
• Minister of Defense
• Education Minister
• Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine
• Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food
• Prosecutor General of Ukraine
• Chair, National Anti-Corruption Committee

... and they tripled their seats form i think 11 to 36 after coups

[Irenicus]

^So Timoshenko was smarter about her PR why being also rather corrupt (some Ukrainians have this opinion that she was the least dirty of a dirty bunch, but eh). How does that justify anything going on in Crimea?

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

No one said Ukrainians are fascists by default that your own hyperbolic characterization. Are you going to deny that there aren't fascists elements though? Whether we argue about their numbers or influence, they are there and certainly contradict this notion of populism. Also the coup didn't start out of nowhere but it built up after a very pro-western and anti-russian bill was defeated.

No, in fact they reinforce the fact that this is populism. The Maidan was such a massive movement that everybody, including the fringes, participated in.

But you, and the likes of the Putin bootlickers across the internet, gladly interpret this as a sign to accept the Kremlin's repeated cries of "fascism! (because they disagree with us)" as if that justifies a fucking invasion of another country. And when I bring this up, you backtrack your insidious insinuation and suddenly I am the hyperbolic one.

No. You will not do this. I'm not that stupid.

And there's a reason the revolution was pro-Western. Recall what started it? A certain failed treaty?

I will repeat again what I said a long time ago: despite the self-hating hipster Westerners, despite the disaster of 2008, despite the excesses of wealth, despite the militarism and imperialism of the Americans under Bush, despite everything, people want a better life. Europe was that symbol of a better life for Ukrainians. That's what the Maidan was, hope for the future, until regime thugs started to shoot people, beat up journalists, drag victims from hospitals and make them "disappear," and suddenly the otherwise rejected Svoboda which shared little of that hopeful vision became frontline fighters, protectors, against a common, jackboot-wearing, black-masked regime foe.

Congratulations, the pro-Russian actors gave the far right extremists their only reason why they aren't completely marginalized by the rest of the anti-Yanukovich opposition.

And if we really want to talk about fascism, then what the fuck is going on in Crimea? What were the X marks on minorities' houses? A giant joke by the ethnic Russian majority "for the lulz"? Must we come back to this three months from now and lament that the West did nothing as ethnic cleansing returns to Europe? That's what starting ethnically-motivated conflicts mean. I'm sure Putin doesn't want to have ethnic cleansing occurring in Crimea. I don't think he will have the will, or the interest, that filthy word adopted by armchair realpolitik-ers everywhere, to prevent it if this little seed of evil blooms.

That's your fascism. Not the tiny parliamentary minority that is suddenly so very dangerous that Mother Russia must invade Ukraine to prevent its growth. If so, then he should probably invade Europe because the European Parliament has the British National Party and its ilk in it. :/

The unprovoked government attack is very likely started by the very ones in the government now according to this article and a leaked video. http://www.infowars.com/leaked-phone...ed-opposition/, a very under reported development in the western media and probably not going to stop the anti-Russian hate going on here.

Infowars?

HAHAHAHAHA

No. Stop. Please. Next you'll link to Russia Today.

[Fireminer]

Let's check out the facts, shall we:

- November 21: Yanukovich abandoned the agreement with EU.

- November 30: Tension rose as violence spread between government forces and protestors.

- December 1: Protestors sized the City Hall.

- December 17: Putin showing support by buying Ukraine bonds and cutting down the fuel price.

- January 16: The anti-protest law was passed.

- January 22: Three protestors died. Tension rose.

- January 28: Ukraine PM resigned. Abolished the anti-protest law.

- January 29: The amnesty bill was offered in exchange for the protestors to leave.

- February 16: The protestors left City Hall for 324 political prisoners to be released.

- February 18: 18 protestors died. They retaliated by taking over the government buildings again.

- February 20: 70 death due to snipers. Western Countries condemned Yanukovich of brutal supressor.

- February 21: Tymoshenko got released. Despite the agreement to hold an early election, Yanukovich fled to Russia as protestors controlled Kiev.

- February 22: Yanukovich was formally removed.

- February 23: Turchinov got the seat. Mass protest in Crimea began.

- February 24: A warrant was put on Yanukovich. Western Countries accepted the new government's reign.

- February 25: The new de-facto, pro-Russia mayor of Sevastopol got appointed.

- February 26: Russian Army put in "Red" status.

- February 27: Crimea government building was seized by unknown armed men.

- February 28: Crimea civilian and military airports were taken. The UN held an emergency meeting. Yanukovich appeared on TV, calling people to rise again the new regime.

- March 1: Crimean leaders asked for Russia help. Duma passed a bill for Putin to use military power to protect Russian citizen in Crimea.

- March 2: Hundred of Russian troops marched into Ukraine border.

- March 3: NATO accused Russia of invasion. A part of Ukraine Navy surrendered to Russian force.

- March 4: Putin stated that the government will do everything to protect its citizen. Russian force made warning shots to the Ukraina soldiers.

- March 5: The meeting between Russia and Ukraina (arranged by Kerry) failed because Lavrov decilined.

- March 6: US put restrictions on Russian and Crimean. Crimea and Sevastopol announced the idea of joining the Federation. EU promised to lend Ukraine 11 billion Euro lending.

- March 7: Support for a "Russian" Crimea rose. Ukraine offered to talk with Russia, but demanded that all Russian troops retreated.

- March 8: Various meetings between Russia and Crimea officials.

Now, we could see that this country is divided into two: The West and The East. Both NATO and Russia want to make a stable hold of this land. However, these are contradicted goals.

But not only in political, but Ukraina is also divided in ethnics and economy. The East side, where most of the Russian live, is a mining and industrial center that is heavy relied on the Federation. The West side of the Ukraine is pursuing a plan to tighter the trading with EU. Because of these that extremists of both sides couldn't get to an agreement.

We could see that both the US and Russia have their faults:

- US: Accepted the new Ukraine government without consulting Russia beforehand.

- Russia: Sending troops into foreign ground.

There are three possible outcomes:

- Both sides come onto an agreement.

- Crimea and eastern part of Ukraine join the Federation.

- Civil War.

[risingstar3110]

Another point, do you guys think whether EU moves on Ukrainia was anything other than politic?

I means the promising of joining EU seems to be a dream for the debt-ridden Ukraine. But Ukraine has a population of 50 mil, 10% of the entire EU. But its GDP is just half of the lowest EU nations, and only 1/5 of the France, and much less of German. Do we expect that EU will take in another deadweight in when they still can't take care of their own member?

Is it just an empty promise, "the cake is a lie" thing, to keep pro-Western government on the seat?

[Fireminer]

Let's not make this a bloody battle, shall we?

Here is the things that we agree:

- Both Russia and America are hypocrite with double standard.

- Ukrainian have done everything according to their will (right or wrong, we'll discust that latter).

- Every country has the right to protect and expand its interests.

- Putting troop on foreign ground without being the victim first (or international agreement) is illegal.

- Facism, ultra-nationalism, racism are bad, and these elements exist in the Kiev/Crimea government.

- Corruption and Economy Depression are the main concern of Ukrainian.

- Ukraine is a battleground for East and West.

Here are the pro when Ukraine allies with Russia and EU:

Russia:

- Longtime alliance.

- Main trading partner.

- Has a large number of Russian as citizen.

- The industrial and mining area is right next to the border.

- Able to receive protection in military from Russia forces.

- Fuel discount.

EU:

- Could further expand the market.

- Don't have the bitter past as with Russia.

- Don't have to be totally relied to one economy, thus able to deal with economy depression better.

- Receive an immidiate boost of money, which is critical to a country near bankrupt.

- The first step in joining EU, one of the most dynamic region in the world (however, they don't have any specific plan).

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

Simply put I said many in the new government are fascists but that not the same as your proclamation that people we characterizing Ukrainians as fascist by default. How many are fascists is a matter of contention that I think we won't agree on.

The way you and others like to characterize it certainly comes of as insinuating that they are fascists, period.

That's are very western take but I think its a bit one sided. Yes, elements in the Ukraine did look to western countries as a beacon of hope but other elements don't agree with that, we see some of them in Crimea and in Pro-russian attacks after the initial overthrow of the government.

And how much of that was directly due to Russia? The pro-Russia movement didn't pick up steam until Russia started moving their military in.

Not everyone wants to emulate the ostensibly superior Western culture, values, and economy.

You're right, people really want to be poor instead. You can start by giving me all your money

That's clash of values is the internal conflict plaguing Ukraine now but by supporting the new government American just as Russia did started an external one.

Don't even try to equate the two, that's like equating someone offering you $20k for your car, and the mafia holding a gun to your head demanding you hand over the car.

you only try to discredit the site I got it on. Whether you want to believe it or not, your blowing it off with such mockery only shows your own bias

In case you don't know, infowars is bad. Like really bad. Quoting anything from infowars to support your argument is like trying to prove bigfoot exists, or that Elvis is really still alive AND an Alien from Alpha Centauri by reading the Enquirer bad.

[Fireminer]

This is not a place to discust Western/Eastern Value, I must remind you. If you guys want to debate that, open a new thread!

And read the timeline above. Even before Russia moving in, protest in Crimea has already been hard.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

I knew people wouldn't get this.

Than you might want to define it better. Remember that most of the forum lives in counties that have had sizable Western influence, if not actual Western countries. There are fewer people from Eastern bloc countries. Though there are lots of Asians, so they would have at least some other perspective other than the old Eastern bloc and Western countries values from post-World War II (though most Asian countries got heavy doses from each side as the Cold War went on).

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

I knew people wouldn't get this.

Culture and values is one thing, ECONOMY is something else completely. Really, show me one country on this planet, regardless of east or west, north or south, capitalist or socialist or communist and anything in between, where being poor is a rallying cry of the government or its people

After all, who wouldn't want to starve, live in squalor, and make sure their children have the least amount of opportunities available

The analogy doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps if you change the part of offering you $20k for your car to offering the person who stole your car $20k perhaps it would be better. We must remember that there isn't one interest here so you should not treat it as such.

Last time I checked Russia doesn't own Ukraine or Crimea.

The source is good and true (I've actually double checked it) while you might want to continue to disparage infowars I don't see any actual evidence for that this a false story. Those who limit their minds are in fact limited.

That article is not new in this thread, if you had been following it then you should've seen all the other articles where the ambassador in question said he was talking about theories he heard while in country, and warned people not to treat it as if it was fact.

You know, like you were doing

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26444747

But I suppose this is where you'll try to say that Infowars is a more reliable source than BBC.

[Fireminer]

@Slick: That is why I've the part: "Putting troops..."