Featured Is Ukraine the Sacrificial Lamb

Funny you should bring up another false narrative to defend the other false narrative you keep pushing.

Here's the way it really went down in South Ossetia.

Georgia’s Invasion of South Ossetia: Two Years On

Late in the evening of the 7th of August, 2008, when the whole world anticipated the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing, the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili ordered his troops to invade the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinval. Saakashvili promised the locals there would be no violence but at midnight the sleeping city was hit by falling shells which are known to be used in large-scale military operations in the army. But then Georgia used them against the civilians.

After the bombing, the Georgian troops, tanks and other military vehicles, entered Tskhinval. In just a few days it turned into a war-torn city. Victims were reported not only among civilians but also among the Russian peacekeepers who had been staying in South Ossetia under the UN`s mandate. The President of Georgia bears ultimate responsibility for what happened, though his ‘patrons’ in the West are also to blame since the Georgian army had been trained by foreigners and used arms purchased from abroad. The whole operation against South Ossetia had been plotted by two Israeli generals who were in charge of the Georgian troops`s headquarters. And rocket launchers used on the night of August 8th had been also reequipped in Israel.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/georgia-s-invasion-of-south-ossetia-two-years-on/20500

Georgia 'started unjustified war'

The war in Georgia last year was started by a Georgian attack that was not justified by international law, an EU-sponsored report has concluded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8281990.stm

New Report on Russia-Georgia War: EU Investigators Debunk Saakashvili's Lies

The truth about the war between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway republic of South Ossetia in August 2008 sounds somewhat convoluted, at least as expressed in the final report of the independent EU fact-finding mission charged with establishing the causes of the conflict. "Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive on 7/8 August could not be substantiated by the mission," reads the document, which was published Wednesday. To put it more simply: It was Georgia who started the war.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-report-on-russia-georgia-war-eu-investigators-debunk-saakashvili-s-lies-a-652512.html

Wonder which false narrative you'll have to repeat to defend the false "Russia attacked Georgia" narrative?

I can hardly wait to see which one you'll choose. Of course you could just skip the whole false narrative routine and go directly to your default "guilt by association" fallacy instead or maybe if you asked nice OR would lend you his monkey. :smilewinkgrin:

As the crisis in Ukraine continues to perpetuate, one aspect that has been particularly striking is the language used by the Western media and politicians (unquestioningly and dutifully repeated by some here and their monkey) to describe Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin.

The country and its leader have been branded as aggressors, invaders, empire builders and have even been compared to Nazi Germany. In the field of psychology, there is a term to describe a defence mechanism – projection, which is characterised by projecting unwanted feelings onto other people. Perhaps, the US and its Western allies are experiencing a surge of projection, as the way they have been describing Russia is not only incorrect, but is also an appropriate way to describe the Western powers.

< snip >

The conflict with Georgia follows a similar line of events as with Chechnya. During the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a large-scale military offensive against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reclaim the territory. This move was completely unprovoked. The Georgian attack caused casualties among Russian peacekeepers, who resisted the assault along with Ossetian militia. Russia rightfully reacted by deploying units of the Russian 58th Army and Russian Airborne Troops into South Ossetia one day later, and launched airstrikes against Georgian forces in South Ossetia and military and logistical targets in Georgia proper. It is now well established that the majority of experts, monitors and ambassadors agreed that the war was started by Georgia.

Continue . . . http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-or-america-who-is-the-real-aggressor/5372882?print=1

I just noticed that your posts have the same amount of solid evidence and meaningful documented information we get from the corporate talking heads on Faux Snews and CNN. None. You should send them both a copy of your resume. I can easily see you as a co host along side cry "Wolf Wolf Wolf" Blitzer. You both share the same message. I wonder, do you have a beard also? :wavey:

 

OR wouldn't let you borrow the monkey, eh? :laugh:

While Russia has been adhering to international law and showing complete lack of aggression over the last 14 years, the US and NATO have been doing the opposite. US alone has intervened in the following countries: Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Philippines, Côte d’Ivoire, Iraq, Georgia, Haiti, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Pakistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Libya, Uganda, Jordan, Chad, Mali, Turkey. NATO, meanwhile, has been involved in the Bosnia and Herzegovina intervention, Kosovo intervention, the Afghanistan War and most recently the Libyan intervention; with the latter two being complete disasters that have the left the countries in shambles and anarchy.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-or-america-who-is-the-real-aggressor/5372882?print=1

 

The American Government’s Biggest Lie Now Is About Ukraine

The American Government’s biggest lie in 2002-2003 was about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We’ve already seen what that lie produced. It cost the U.S. more than $3 trillion, produced ISIS, and caused death and destruction in Iraq that make Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship look benign by comparison. Are Americans still fooling themselves about that? (Some are; but most are not.)

The American Government’s biggest lie in 2014-2015 is instead about Vladimir Putin and Ukraine — and it’s even worse, and far more dangerous, because this one can very possibly lead to a nuclear war, one with Russia that’s totally unnecessary for America’s national-security, and that actually places all of our nation’s security at risk, for the shameful reasons of aristocrats (“oligarchs”) in both the U.S. and Ukraine — not for any real reasons of the American people, at all.

But, that’s where we are heading, nonetheless, because America’s aristocrats overwhelmingly want it (as will be shown here).

Continue . . . http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/american-governments-biggest-lie-now-ukraine.html

This has already been proven to be false. SEE THIS

Russia didn't "invade" Crimea. It sent troops there after Washington fomented the violent coup that ousted the legal elected Ukrainian govt but the number of Russian troops never exceeded the 25,000 allowed by the "Partition Treaty" that was signed in 1997 and ratified in 1999.

This to has been proven to be false.

Ukraine’s top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian Government’s forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian civil war is being waged.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/ukrainian-government-russian-troops-fighting-us.html

What's unfortunate is that we have "presstitutes" like this guy in this country who will sacrifice what little credibility they have left by making up easily disproved lies to support the government's false narratives instead of journalists that would sacrifice their careers and possibly their lives to tell the truth.

I've already illustrated in another thread that the Atlantic Council is made up mostly of bankers and hedge fund managers that stand to gain from the war and chaos caused by the Washington backed coup in Ukraine. In other words a corporate sponsored "think tank". Who's interests does a corporate sponsored "think tank" serve? It's corporate sponsor's interests maybe?

Freedom House as it turns out by looking at their "supporters" page is also a corporate sponsored "think tank". With close ties to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID, think Victoria Nuland) that played a roll in financing and training the Ukrainian "freedom lovers" that ousted the legally elected Ukrainian president in a violent and bloody coup. Who later burned people alive that were trapped inside a bulding.

Quick background check on USAID.

USAID Exposed in Cuba – What it Tells Us About US Subversion Worldwide

Revealed in an Associated Press (AP) investigation, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had for two years attempted to create and exploit a social network within Cuba for the purpose of sparking unrest and overthrowing the Cuban government. The program was an abject failure, primarily because the Cuban government took the necessary measures to investigate, interrogate, and otherwise disrupt what was foreign-backed sedition.

Continue . . . http://www.globalresearch.ca/usaid-exposed-in-cuba-what-it-tells-us-about-us-subversion-worldwide/5419679

CIA Front, USAID, “Spreading Democracy”, Gearing Up in Ukraine – Suharto II?

USAID has a history of working with the CIA as a front operation to help them spread that special kind of “democracy” (read as IMF inspired brutal repression) in nations where we have installed brutal dictators in support of our neoliberal economic agenda.

” In South Vietnam, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)provided cover for CIA operatives so widely that the two became almost synonymous.” Washington Post

As the bodies of labor union reps and dissidents are piling up on the stairwells of Odessa and the streets of eastern Ukraine, today it is reported that USAID needs another couple million to support pro-Western “media outlets” in the run-up to the sham election to be held in the troubled state.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has promised to beef up financial aid for Ukraine’s pro-Western media outlets amid a mounting dispute between the West and Russia. Press TV

Two weeks ago it was reported that the agency created a Twitter-like program (ZunZuneo) in Cuba with the express purpose of fostering dissent and creating unrest in the nation with the hopes of setting up yet another regime change color revolution. Turns out their efforts were not limited to Cuba.

“In a number of countries, including Venezuela and Bolivia, USAID is acting more as an agency involved in covert action, like the CIA, than as an aid or development agency.” Marc Weisbrot

It should be noted that USAID’s efforts aren’t limited to White Hat psyops.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-front-usaid-spreading-democracy-gearing-up-in-ukraine-suharto-ii/5381174

CLICK HERE for more information about USAID.

 

Colored Revolutions: A New Form of Regime Change, Made in the USA

This article was first published October 11,2011.

In 1983, the strategy of overthrowing inconvenient governments and calling it “democracy promotion” was born.

Through the creation of a series of quasi-private “foundations”, such as Albert Einstein Institute (AEI), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House and later the International Center for Non-Violent Conflict (ICNC), Washington began to filter funding and strategic aid to political parties and groups abroad that promoted US agenda in nations with insubordinate governments.

Behind all these “foundations” and “institutes” is the US Agency for Inter- national Development (USAID), the financial branch of the Department of State. Today, USAID has become a critical part of the security, intelligence and defense axis in Washington. In 2009, the Interagency Counterinsurgency Initiative became official doctrine in the US. Now, USAID is the principal entity that promotes the economic and strategic interests of the US across the globe as part of counterinsurgency operations. Its departments dedicated to transition initiatives, reconstruction, conflict management, economic development, governance and democracy are the main venues through which millions of dollars are filtered from Washington to political parties, NGOs, student organizations and movements that promote US agenda worldwide. Wherever a coup d’etat, a colored revolution or a regime change favorable to US interests occurs, USAID and its flow of dollars is there.

How Does a Colored Revolution Work?

Continue . . . http://www.globalresearch.ca/colored-revolutions-a-new-form-of-regime-change-made-in-the-usa/27061

 

Ya know if what you two keep alleging were actually true you could post evidence that supports your "corporate sponsored" allegations instead of just posting more "corporate sponsored" allegations as if they were evidence. You wouldn't have to post all the silly images and smears either.

Just sayin.

German Intel: Breedlove is Bonkers!

What happens when a close friend starts acting so bizarrely that you need to gently extract yourself from his ravings lest you be tarred with the same brush -- or worse? That is the position in which Germany is increasingly finding itself, as the US government's strange pronouncements about Ukraine are getting too much to bear. The German establishment magazine Der Spiegel has just published a very important article, "Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine," that lifts the lid on what official Germany really thinks about the US neocon push to war with Russia over Ukraine.

Der Spiegel starts by recalling an event last Wednesday. It was a time when the "Minsk II" ceasefire agreement had produced relative calm throughout eastern Ukraine. The weaponry was being withdrawn and an encouraging, if imperfect, ceasefire was holding. The deal, brokered personally by the German, French, Russian, and Ukrainian leadership, was producing results. Yet on that very day, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (SACEUR), the American General Philip Breedlove, was spinning a completely different yarn.

As the magazine reports: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/march/08/german-intel-breedlove-is-bonkers/


What, then, are the facts on that matter, of Crimea?

First, we must make note of the fact that this annexation occurred on 16 March 2014, when Crimeans went to the polls and voted in a referendum on whether to remain ruled by the Ukrainian national Government in Kiev, as they had been ruled only since 1954, or instead by the Russian national Government in Moscow, as they had been ruled from 1783 to 1954; and we must also keep in mind that this referendum had occurred as a direct result of Obama’s coup against the man, Viktor Yanukovych, for whom Crimeans had voted at around 75% throughout Crimea. In the United States, that type of election, one in which the leading candidate had received 75% of the vote, would be called a “landslide.”

How would Americans feel if they had voted 75% for a President in 2010, for a six-year term, only to find him overthrown in an extremely violent coup four years later by a foreign power that they despised and feared as an aggressor, as Crimeans overwhelmingly, and by far more than 75%, felt about the United States?

Read More At: http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/entire-case-sanctions-russia-pure-lies/

 

No that's more of what you're advocating.

Let's see if I get this right.

You're claiming that a 25% minority of ultra nationalists that came to power after they pulled off a violent coup (aka insurrection) with foreign support that 75% of Ukrainians including Crimea wouldn't support (vote for) if they actually ran for office instead of grabbing power at gun point as they did has the right to bomb, shell and terrorize the majority of Ukrainians into submission because you don't like Russians.

Okay so, . . .

Following that logic a bit further, if the federal government here were overthrown by a foreign backed coup with those claiming to be the new government in the aftermath would have every right to bomb, shell and terrorize Americans in every state for not recognizing the authority of a coup installed federal government.

In other words, you're saying that a violent minority of 25% has the right to force the majority of 75% into submission simply because the minority successfully "usurped the throne" so to speak.

So let's follow this logic a bit further. If a minority of ultra nationalists. Okay, bad example you'd probably support them.

Hmmm, okay if a foreign backed minority of "Muslims" say around 25% of the population supported were to perform a bloody "regime change boogey" in Washington DC and replace the federal government with their own stooges the remaining 75% of the population has no option but to submit to the will of that minority of foreign installed usurpers simply because all the "credible" people on TV and in print claim these usurpers are now the legitimate government and "if you aren't with the usurpers (eh hem "government") you're with the terrorists" and subject to arrest and or execution according to the, eh hem "new government's" anti terrorist policies.

Sound about right?

 

Putin is a botox-face zombie KGB thug and liar.

 

Maybe so but he's still the one that's been following international law. While your team of neocons casually ignore and violate it while constantly bearing false witness against Putin.

It may not be one of the ten commandments (thou shalt not support chronic bearers of false witness) but I'm pretty sure God doesn't look kindly on people in support of those who constantly bear false witness against another for personal or political gain.

In this case "false witness" = making one unfounded allegation after another that flies in the face of all the available evidence.

So anyway now that you've defaulting back into the name calling and demonization routine I can only conclude that you still can't prove any of the allegations you and the corporate sponsored (think NASCAR) team neocon have been making for over a year now and you're all upset about it.

That's what you get for believing people who lie for a living.

 

I didn't want to do this, but. . . since you asked so nicely.

By that I mean I didn't want to subscribe to Rupert Murdoch's newspaper so I can point out all the unfounded and unproven allegations the author of your OP has managed to cram into a single article.

But just to prove a point I will.



OPINION

One Year After the Annexation, a Darkness Falls Over Crimea

A campaign of censorship and intimidation targets Tatars and Ukrainians who do not endorse Kremlin control.

By MARK P. LAGON And ALINA POLYAKOVA
March 17, 2015 7:04 p.m. ET

On March 18, 2014, the Kremlin followed its illegal invasion of Crimea by officially annexing the peninsula. Crimea then faded from the headlines once Russia began its war in eastern Ukraine. That’s unfortunate because Russia is perpetrating human-rights abuses in Crimea that go underreported in the West in no small part due to the Kremlin’s efforts to hide them.

The annexation of Crimea marked the first time since the end of World War II that borders in Europe were changed by unilateral military force. President Vladimir...

----> To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Log In <----


The link in your last post leads to this page . . . BTW

PAGE UNAVAILABLE

The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available.

You may use the "Back" button in your browser to return to the previous page or click Home to return to the WSJ.com home page.

To report this problem, contact Customer Support at [email protected]

Nope 12 dollars for twelve weeks is more than I care to spend just to read unfounded neocon allegations and disinformation.

But I can prove the author is full of "barnyard crap" just by looking at the first paragraph. So let's look at it. Again. You must have missed it the first time I identified the "barnyard crap" in it.

Put the monkey away and pay attention this time. I'm not going to keep repeating myself like this.

Now you can keep trying to pass off what amounts to nothing but a page full of unfounded allegations as evidence but it's not going to make the "barnyard crap" it contains smell any different no matter how many times you post it.

 

A Family Business of Perpetual War

Exclusive: Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and – from op-ed pages – he demands Congress buy more weapons. There’s a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia – and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.

This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.

Continue . . . https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

 

I'd say the problem is your's OR.

For a year now I've asked you to provide evidence (see definition) to support your allegations and so far all you have provided is more unfounded allegations along with a circus style side show that I find hard to comprehend that it comes from the mind of a responsible mature critical thinking individual instead of a third grade school boy that has just heard the word no for the first time.

Evidently you have confused un supported allegations with evidence. An allegation is not evidence. I'll illustrate.

Allegation: a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.

It has always been logical (some call it common sense) in this country up until very recently to investigate all the facts and evidence before coming to any conclusions.

This has all changed since Washington and the corporate media monopolies have been occupied (co opted) by neocons and their corporate talking head parrots.

Now a days investigating all the facts and evidence before coming to any conclusions is considered to be the work of "conspiracy theorists". Once upon a time investigating all the facts and evidence was called journalism. Today however journalism especially "corporate sponsored" journalism has become nothing more than repeating what comes out of the "authorities" mouths and ridiculing anyone who asks questions or points out contrary facts and evidence.

Asking the politicos, corporate sponsored talking heads and their unquestioning audience to provide facts and evidence to support their unfounded allegations is now considered a kind of sickness to be met with insults, ridicule and childish displays of magical monkeys and silly GIFS.

Once upon a time in this country looking for and finding the fact based truth was an honest and honorable thing to do.

Now however it is considered as you say "a problem".

But the real "problem" here is you cannot find the evidence I have asked you to provide for over a year. You've shown that you can only provide unfounded allegations that I presume you truly believe to be evidence. So the only conclusion that I can come to is you are confused at what constitutes "evidence and facts".

The two things which always seem to be missing in your posts.

To understand what actually constitutes "evidence and facts" see the above definitions. You may notice they differ greatly from "allegations". But then again maybe I'm being to optimistic about your ability to actually notice that there is a difference.

I also think that perhaps you have mistaken being loyal to "the state" (see definition below) with being a loyal American.

State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

Maybe it's time you re-learned what it actually means to be an American.

What It MEANS To Be An American

Many blowhards attack those who criticize powerful people in America.

They treat any questioning of “authority” as being “anti-American” or “anti-government”.

Indeed, according to Department of Defense training manuals, protest is “low-level terrorism”. And see this, this and this. Similarly, an FBI memo labels peace protesters as “terrorists”.

But – as shown by the following quotes – those are anti-American thoughts.

Indeed, as Americans, we are very pro-America.

But we’re anti-CORRUPTION, anti-FASCISM and anti-PILLAGING AND PLUNDERING. If that makes us controversial, so be it … we’re in very good company:

Read And Learn More At: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/means-american.html

To sum up, I am now and always have been very loyal to America. While you and your furry little alter ego on the other hand seem to be very loyal to "the state".

 

Obama’s Double-Standard on Russia

He Attacks Russia, then Condemn’s Putin for Defending Russia from His Attack

Ukraine is considered by geostrategists (both Republican and Democratic) to be militarily the most important adjoining nation to Russia, serving as the chief buffer to attacks against Russia from the west. Since 1783, Russia has had its key Black Sea naval base located in Crimea, which used to be part of Russia 1783-1954; the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev blithely donated Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954, though the residents in Crimea didn’t want that — and no referendum was taken on it. After the Soviet Union broke up in 1992, this naval base continued but instead on a long-term lease from Ukraine.

For Ukraine to become anti-Russian would be like for Mexico to become anti-American: even worse than when Cuba became anti-American in 1959. Mexico, of course, isn’t anti-American, but, during Barack Obama’s second term, Ukraine did, indeed, become anti-Russian. It happened not via any democratic revolution (such as American propaganda pretended), but via a bloody coup.

Here is how it transpired:

Continue . . . http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/obamas-double-standard-russia.html

 

Depends on who is left after the earth is turned into a cinder-block (if the Lord doesn't come first).

HankD