:laugh::laugh::laugh:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Kremlin Trolls
- Thread starter church mouse guy
- Start date
poncho
Well-Known Member
You're the perfect example of what I'm talking about.
You haven't been able to prove what you keep claiming even though you've had over a year to do it. :tonofbricks:
Last edited by a moderator:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
poncho
Well-Known Member
It is funny.
How you have convinced yourself to believe those who have been lying to for so long.
The funniest part is seeing you side with Obama, the democrat party and the liberal media.
Warmongering makes for strange bed fellows I reckon.:applause:
How you have convinced yourself to believe those who have been lying to for so long.
The funniest part is seeing you side with Obama, the democrat party and the liberal media.
Warmongering makes for strange bed fellows I reckon.:applause:
Last edited by a moderator:
It is the paleo-cons and the libertarians who are in bed with Putin and who believe the Kremlin trolls. Obama has done nothing but ask Putin if he wants fries with that. McCain said that the loss of the Crimea was a disgraceful chapter in the history of the free world so the GOP does not care for the Obama-Putin romance.
poncho
Well-Known Member
:laugh: What a joke.
Obama handed Putin Ukraine when he and Soros instigated the bloody coup that divided the country and started the civil war.
John McCain was a leading cheerleader for regime change and arming Washington's neo nazi allies now he wants everyone with the IQ of a clam and ignorant of the facts to believe he's on the outs with the "humanitarian" war monger brigade.
Now for the facts . . . you'd better close your eyes CMG you probably don't want to see them. They don't fit your narrative.
The Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003, and Ukraine II in 2013-2014 are recounted well, including detailed chronology. It’s truly remarkable how much has been publicly reported that remains buried. Western leaders met repeatedly in 2012 and 2013 to plot the fate of Ukraine. Neo-Nazis from Ukraine were sent to Poland to train for a coup. NGOs operating out of the U.S. Embassy in Kiev organized trainings for coup participants. On November 24, 2013, three days after Ukraine refused an IMF deal, including refusing to sever ties to Russia, protesters in Kiev began to clash with police. The protesters used violence, destroying buildings and monuments, and tossing Molotov cocktails, but President Obama warned the Ukrainian government not to respond with force. (Contrast that with the treatment of the Occupy movement, or the shooting on Capitol Hill of the woman who made an unacceptable U-turn in her car with her baby.)
U.S.-funded groups organized a Ukrainian opposition, funded a new TV channel, and promoted regime change. The U.S. State Department spent some $5 billion. The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State who handpicked the new leaders, openly brought cookies to protesters. When those protesters violently overthrew the government in February 2014, the United States immediately declared the coup government legitimate. That new government banned major political parties, and attacked, tortured, and murdered their members. The new government included neo-Nazis and would soon include officials imported from the United States. The new government banned the Russian language — the first language of many Ukrainian citizens. Russian war memorials were destroyed. Russian-speaking populations were attacked and murdered.
Crimea, an autonomous region of Ukraine, had its own parliament, had been part of Russia from 1783 until 1954, had publicly voted for close ties to Russia in 1991, 1994, and 2008, and its parliament had voted to rejoin Russia in 2008. On March 16, 2014, 82% of Crimeans took part in a referendum, and 96% of them voted to rejoin Russia. This nonviolent, bloodless, democratic, and legal action, in no violation of a Ukrainian constitution that had been shredded by a violent coup, was immediately denounced in the West as a Russian “invasion” of Crimea.
Continue . . . http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/ukraine-and-the-apocalyptic-risk-of-propagandized-ignorance.html
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union: The U.S. and Nato Are Provoking the Ukrainian Crisis
Jack Matlock, U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, says that the U.S. and NATO are to blame for the Ukraine crisis:
The fact is they are going to intervene until they are certain that there is no prospect of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. And all of the threats by NATO and so on to sort of increase defenses elsewhere is simply provocative to the Russians. Now, I’m not saying that’s right, but I am saying that’s the way Russia is going to react. And frankly, this is all predictable. And those of us who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War almost unanimously said in the 1990s, “Do not expand NATO eastward. Find a different way to protect eastern Europe, a way that includes Russia. Otherwise, eventually there’s going to be a confrontation, because there is a red line, as far as any Russian government is concerned, when it comes to Ukraine and Georgia and other former republics of the Soviet Union.”
Read More At: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/former-u-s-ambassador-ussr-u-s-nato-provoking-ukrainian-crisis.html
Okay, it's safe to open your eyes now.
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose that the proof that the Soviets have not invaded the Ukraine is the 40 new ICBMs that Putin is going to build and deploy and not the selfies that Russian soldiers took in the Ukraine.
poncho
Well-Known Member
I don't know if there is any proof. I've been asking you to provide it for a year and a half but you never do.
The proof that Russia invaded Ukraine would be a big ole white flag of surrender over Kiev right after all their air and ground defense were destroyed.
That would probably only take a couple days considering the Ukrainian nationalists have to depend on handouts from Washington and the *IMF just to keep killing their own people. If the Russians invaded there would be Russian checkpoints every where and all the little Washington installed puppets would be fleeing the country carrying big sacks of (American and European tax payer) money as fast their legs could carry them.
There would be no further need for you to keep making claims you cannot support with evidence and thus having to resort to using your favored "guilt by association" fallacy in place of the evidence you cannot find because the evidence would be overwhelming.
* IMF Violates IMF Rules, to Continue Ukraine Bailouts
The IMF, whose bailout operations are absorbed by the taxpayers in the member countries whenever a particular bailed-out nation defaults, announced on Friday, June 19th, that it will “continue to support Ukraine through its Lending-into-Arrears Policy even in the event that a negotiated agreement with creditors in line with the program cannot be reached in a timely manner.” Though this new “Lending-into-Arrears” policy violates two IMF rules, it was justified by the IMF’s Managing Director Christine Lagarde on the basis of the Ukrainian government’s “continued efforts to reach a collaborative agreement with all creditors.”
In other words: a statement by Ukraine’s government that it wants to reach an agreement with its private creditors is being used by the IMF as if it were an excuse to extend into the indefinite future the IMF’s continued taxpayer-guaranteed financing of (‘lending’ to) the Ukrainian government, despite the fact that the IMF is violating two of the IMF’s own most-basic rules restricting its lending-authority — these rules are lending-restrictions whose purpose was to reduce the riskiness of the IMF’s lending, and so to minimize the amount that the IMF will be taking from taxpayers to fund its losses:
1: The IMF does not lend to nations at war — but Ukraine continues being at war against its former Donbass region despite the Minsk II ceasefire agreement; ceasefire violations, especially by the Ukrainian side, continue regularly.
2: The IMF does not lend to nations that are likely to default — but every independent source categorizes Ukraine as being virtually certain to default, and the only actual question regarding Ukraine is: when? The IMF’s answer: we’ll keep lending, building Ukraine’s public debt even higher, until our aim is achieved, and then we won’t — and that’s when the default will occur — the default will happen when we decide it will happen. It will happen when we will stop lying and saying that it won’t happen.
The reasons for Ukraine’s actual insolvency are obvious.
Continue . . . http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/imf-violates-imf-rules-to-continue-ukraine-bailouts.html
NATO Lies to NPR
On June 17th, U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interviewed NATO’s and America’s General Ben Hodges, who is the Commanding General of the U.S. Army in Europe, which is “NATO’s most senior land forces command.” He said (after 4:54 in the audio):
“This notion that somehow, Russia, you know, has no choice but to respond or that the West is being provocative, really, I don’t think rings true at all. … We’re building up on NATO’s borders. These are NATO countries, these are allies of ours, that are concerned based on what Russia is doing on their borders, and they’ve asked for assurance that their allies are there.”
The interviewer asked, “President Putin said that only an insane person could imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO. I mean, is NATO insane for worrying about a Russian attack?” Hodges replied (6:41):
“I think that’s an irresponsible question. It is completely unimaginable to me that Russia would ever invade Crimea. I mean, this was the day after the Sochi Olympics, after the Russians had spent millions and millions of dollars, and then threw away whatever goodwill they had earned the following day by invading Crimea.”
That’s so many lies in such a short span, so that unpacking all of them will produce a long article; but, those lies are the mainstream view in America’s news media, so, here goes the reality that demolishes them:
Continue . . . http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/nato-lies-to-npr.html
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
CONCLUDING NOTE
Among the news media to which have been submitted for publication every article I have written, and so all of which are well aware of the facts that have been documented here and in the articles that are linked-to here, are: ABC New, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, The New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Guardian, Independent, The Atlantic, Harper’s, The Nation, Progressive, Mother Jones, American Prospect, Foreign Policy, National Review, Forbes, BusinessWeek, New York Review of Books, Rolling Stone, Alternet, Common Dreams, Truthout, Salon, Huffington Post, Slate, and many others. If you had not previously known the facts and documentation that has been presented here, it’s not because those news media haven’t had it presented to them; it’s because they have turned it down. If you want to find out why they don’t publish this information, then you might want to write to them and ask why they are keeping this information and documentation secret from their readers, viewers, and listeners. Are the companies’ owners, and/or big advertisers, making that decision, so that their ‘journalists’ are largely just PR-spreaders, or stenographers to power?
Is this America’s ‘free press’? Is this America’s ‘democracy’? But in fact, the U.S. was recently discovered to be, and long to have been, a dictatorship, in which the people who are not in the richest 10% have no impact whatsoever on the nation’s policies. A brief video accurately summarized that study (by Gilens and Page) and explained why its findings are that way. It’s most likely the people in the top 0.01%, even above that the billionaires, who are actually being served by this dictatorship. But, anyway, the objectives of the bottom 90% don’t at all affect federal policymaking. That’s clear from the data.
People such as Ben Hodges are placed where they are, because they serve the top 0.01%, or maybe even less. This is why they can lie to the public with total impunity.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/nato-lies-to-npr.html
Ukraine Military High Command Confirms: “No Russian Invasion or Regular Troops”. Presence of NATO Forces in Donbass
In an interview with Ukrainian Espesso TV, Ukrainian military expert Major Aleksander Taran confirmed what General Muzenko head of the Ukrainian Armed Forces had to say on the subject.
During a briefing with General Muzenko he announced that “To date, we have only the involvement of some members of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and Russian citizens that are part of illegal armed groups involved in the fighting. We are not fighting with the regular Russian Army. We have enough forces and means in order to inflict a final defeat even with illegal armed formation present. “- he said.
< snip >
November 6th in an interview with Gromadske.TV, Markian Lubkivsky, the adviser to the head of the SBU (the Ukrainian version of the CIA) stated there are NO RUSSIAN TROOPS ON UKRANIAN SOIL! This unexpected announcement came as he fumbled with reporters’ questions on the subject. According to his statement, he said the SBU confirmed that there were some 5000 Russian nationals [volunteers], but no Russian soldiers in Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics.
Read More At: http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-military-high-command-confirms-no-russian-invasion-or-regular-troops-presence-of-nato-forces-in-donbass/5431369
Among the news media to which have been submitted for publication every article I have written, and so all of which are well aware of the facts that have been documented here and in the articles that are linked-to here, are: ABC New, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, The New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Guardian, Independent, The Atlantic, Harper’s, The Nation, Progressive, Mother Jones, American Prospect, Foreign Policy, National Review, Forbes, BusinessWeek, New York Review of Books, Rolling Stone, Alternet, Common Dreams, Truthout, Salon, Huffington Post, Slate, and many others. If you had not previously known the facts and documentation that has been presented here, it’s not because those news media haven’t had it presented to them; it’s because they have turned it down. If you want to find out why they don’t publish this information, then you might want to write to them and ask why they are keeping this information and documentation secret from their readers, viewers, and listeners. Are the companies’ owners, and/or big advertisers, making that decision, so that their ‘journalists’ are largely just PR-spreaders, or stenographers to power?
Is this America’s ‘free press’? Is this America’s ‘democracy’? But in fact, the U.S. was recently discovered to be, and long to have been, a dictatorship, in which the people who are not in the richest 10% have no impact whatsoever on the nation’s policies. A brief video accurately summarized that study (by Gilens and Page) and explained why its findings are that way. It’s most likely the people in the top 0.01%, even above that the billionaires, who are actually being served by this dictatorship. But, anyway, the objectives of the bottom 90% don’t at all affect federal policymaking. That’s clear from the data.
People such as Ben Hodges are placed where they are, because they serve the top 0.01%, or maybe even less. This is why they can lie to the public with total impunity.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/nato-lies-to-npr.html
Ukraine Military High Command Confirms: “No Russian Invasion or Regular Troops”. Presence of NATO Forces in Donbass
In an interview with Ukrainian Espesso TV, Ukrainian military expert Major Aleksander Taran confirmed what General Muzenko head of the Ukrainian Armed Forces had to say on the subject.
During a briefing with General Muzenko he announced that “To date, we have only the involvement of some members of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and Russian citizens that are part of illegal armed groups involved in the fighting. We are not fighting with the regular Russian Army. We have enough forces and means in order to inflict a final defeat even with illegal armed formation present. “- he said.
< snip >
November 6th in an interview with Gromadske.TV, Markian Lubkivsky, the adviser to the head of the SBU (the Ukrainian version of the CIA) stated there are NO RUSSIAN TROOPS ON UKRANIAN SOIL! This unexpected announcement came as he fumbled with reporters’ questions on the subject. According to his statement, he said the SBU confirmed that there were some 5000 Russian nationals [volunteers], but no Russian soldiers in Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics.
Read More At: http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-military-high-command-confirms-no-russian-invasion-or-regular-troops-presence-of-nato-forces-in-donbass/5431369
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
Ukraine’s Pres. Poroshenko Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was a Coup
Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko requests the supreme court of Ukraine to declare that his predecessor, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown by an illegal operation; in other words, that the post-Yanukovych government, including Poroshenko’s own Presidency, came into power from a coup, not from something democratic, not from any authentic constitutional process at all.
In a remarkable document, which is not posted at the English version of the website of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, but which is widely reported outside the United States, including Russia, Poroshenko, in Ukrainian (not in English), has petitioned the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (as it is being widely quoted in English):
“I ask the court to acknowledge that the law ‘on the removal of the presidential title from Viktor Yanukovych’ as unconstitutional.”
I had previously reported, and here will excerpt, Poroshenko’s having himself admitted prior to 26 February 2014, to the EU’s investigator, and right after the February 22nd overthrow of Yanukovych, that the overthrow was a coup, and that it was even a false-flag operation, in which the snipers, who were dressed as if they were Ukrainian Security Bureau troops, were actually not, and that, as the EU’s investigator put his finding to the EU’s chief of foreign affairs Catherine Ashton [and with my explanatory annotations here]:
Continue . . . http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/ukraines-pres-poroshenko-says-overthrow-of-yanukovych-was-a-coup.html
Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko requests the supreme court of Ukraine to declare that his predecessor, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown by an illegal operation; in other words, that the post-Yanukovych government, including Poroshenko’s own Presidency, came into power from a coup, not from something democratic, not from any authentic constitutional process at all.
In a remarkable document, which is not posted at the English version of the website of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, but which is widely reported outside the United States, including Russia, Poroshenko, in Ukrainian (not in English), has petitioned the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (as it is being widely quoted in English):
“I ask the court to acknowledge that the law ‘on the removal of the presidential title from Viktor Yanukovych’ as unconstitutional.”
I had previously reported, and here will excerpt, Poroshenko’s having himself admitted prior to 26 February 2014, to the EU’s investigator, and right after the February 22nd overthrow of Yanukovych, that the overthrow was a coup, and that it was even a false-flag operation, in which the snipers, who were dressed as if they were Ukrainian Security Bureau troops, were actually not, and that, as the EU’s investigator put his finding to the EU’s chief of foreign affairs Catherine Ashton [and with my explanatory annotations here]:
Continue . . . http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/ukraines-pres-poroshenko-says-overthrow-of-yanukovych-was-a-coup.html
Events in Ukraine are moving fast. What at first appeared to be a token show of force in the Crimea[1] has rapidly evolved into what appears to be an ongoing Russian military intervention into Ukraine[2] -- which only days ago was the subject of optimism after its kleptocratic ex-president, Viktor Yanukovych, was driven from power by Ukrainian revolutionaries. Yanukovych's forced abdication may have been a positive development in isolation, and may still yet, but it also apparently set wheels into motion that appear to be in the throes of culmination: the Russian invasion of Ukraine's Crimea region.
If it were to happen anywhere, it was always going to start in the Crimea. The jutting Black Sea peninsula is the site of a major Russian naval base -- the anchorage for the venerable Russian Black Sea fleet and host to some 15,000 Russian military personnel. Most of its population are ethnic Russians, the most acute exception being its substantial, pro-Ukraine Tatar minority. Russia's initial moves appeared to include only its troops from the base and a mingling of pro-Russia Crimean militias -- technically in violation of its basing agreement with Ukraine, yes, but hardly a Red Dawn remake either. But then the situation rapidly escalated: aircraft from the nearby Russian province of Krasnodar Krai began to appear; Crimean airports and the surrounding airspace was closed; telecommunications and highways were blocked off. In essence, textbook prep work for an armed intervention.
WHY THE CRIMEA?
And an armed intervention did come. By February 28, it was already clear that the Russians were arriving in force. Armored columns were sighted, reports circulated of 2,000 Russian troops landing, and Russian military helicopters were arrayed throughout Crimean airspace. A day later, that number has been upped to 6,000 troops as the Russian government, ever the legally adroit, passed a bill justifying its invasion of Ukraine[3] Hopes that Russia will confine its aggression to the Crimea, which was part of Russia until it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954, look to be threatened by reports that similar patterns are being repeated elsewhere in east Ukraine -- Donetsk, Odessa, and Zaporozhye, among others.
Putin's rationale for a Crimea grab in many ways is counter-intuitive. By seizing the Crimea, Moscow has essentially guaranteed that western Ukraine, already predisposed towards the West, will recoil at the idea of any future Russian involvement in the country. Even without deploying its military forces, Russia already possessed a rich array of options for destabilizing Ukraine. Ukraine depends on Russia for energy, trade, and even the occasional bailout. And as recent events have demonstrated, Russia has few qualms about using its influence among its local compatriots as levers to be exercised. Yet despite these considerable mechanisms, Moscow has chosen intervention.
http://www.fpri.org/articles/2014/03/russian-invasion-ukraine
If it were to happen anywhere, it was always going to start in the Crimea. The jutting Black Sea peninsula is the site of a major Russian naval base -- the anchorage for the venerable Russian Black Sea fleet and host to some 15,000 Russian military personnel. Most of its population are ethnic Russians, the most acute exception being its substantial, pro-Ukraine Tatar minority. Russia's initial moves appeared to include only its troops from the base and a mingling of pro-Russia Crimean militias -- technically in violation of its basing agreement with Ukraine, yes, but hardly a Red Dawn remake either. But then the situation rapidly escalated: aircraft from the nearby Russian province of Krasnodar Krai began to appear; Crimean airports and the surrounding airspace was closed; telecommunications and highways were blocked off. In essence, textbook prep work for an armed intervention.
WHY THE CRIMEA?
And an armed intervention did come. By February 28, it was already clear that the Russians were arriving in force. Armored columns were sighted, reports circulated of 2,000 Russian troops landing, and Russian military helicopters were arrayed throughout Crimean airspace. A day later, that number has been upped to 6,000 troops as the Russian government, ever the legally adroit, passed a bill justifying its invasion of Ukraine[3] Hopes that Russia will confine its aggression to the Crimea, which was part of Russia until it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954, look to be threatened by reports that similar patterns are being repeated elsewhere in east Ukraine -- Donetsk, Odessa, and Zaporozhye, among others.
Putin's rationale for a Crimea grab in many ways is counter-intuitive. By seizing the Crimea, Moscow has essentially guaranteed that western Ukraine, already predisposed towards the West, will recoil at the idea of any future Russian involvement in the country. Even without deploying its military forces, Russia already possessed a rich array of options for destabilizing Ukraine. Ukraine depends on Russia for energy, trade, and even the occasional bailout. And as recent events have demonstrated, Russia has few qualms about using its influence among its local compatriots as levers to be exercised. Yet despite these considerable mechanisms, Moscow has chosen intervention.
http://www.fpri.org/articles/2014/03/russian-invasion-ukraine
EUROPEAN FOREIGN ministers met Monday to consider proposals for resuming diplomatic contacts and cooperation with Russia in a range of areas — a strategy pressed by several governments that wish to paper over the breach opened by Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Unfortunately for the doves, the discussion came just as Russian forces, after several weeks of relative calm, launched a new offensive in eastern Ukraine.
By Tuesday, the Ukrainian government and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine were reporting that fresh Russian army units were crossing the border and attacking Ukrainian positions north of the city of Luhansk and at the Donetsk airport. “The situation,” European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini told us shortly after arriving in Washington, “is not going in the right direction.” Appropriately, the European ministers concluded there were no grounds for altering the existing sanctions on Russia, some of which will come up for renewal at a summit meeting in March — and the plan for detente came under heavy criticism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...146368-a0de-11e4-903f-9f2faf7cd9fe_story.html
By Tuesday, the Ukrainian government and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine were reporting that fresh Russian army units were crossing the border and attacking Ukrainian positions north of the city of Luhansk and at the Donetsk airport. “The situation,” European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini told us shortly after arriving in Washington, “is not going in the right direction.” Appropriately, the European ministers concluded there were no grounds for altering the existing sanctions on Russia, some of which will come up for renewal at a summit meeting in March — and the plan for detente came under heavy criticism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...146368-a0de-11e4-903f-9f2faf7cd9fe_story.html
poncho
Well-Known Member
Those articles are long on opinion and claims but short on evidence.
I went though the "references" found some pictures and more claims. Most from un-named unverified sources.
Maybe you can point me to the evidence that would verify all the articles claims?
Unless it's going to take another year and a half. In that case I guess you can just do the usual and call me delusional for questioning the lack of evidence.
You might even want to call in CMG to play another "guilt by association" trip on me or borrow OR's magical musical monkeys to draw attention away from that same lack of evidence.
Neat trick, Michael can read Putin's mind. Awesome!
By using the words "seizing the Crimea" Michael is ignoring the verified fact that the people of Crimea voted overwhelming to re join the Russian Federation.
The word "seize" means to "take hold of suddenly and forcibly". In actual fact Putin did not "seize" Crimea. The people of Crimea made the choice to rejoin the Russian Federation.
Either Michael doesn't know what the word "seize" means or he's deliberately using that word dishonestly. And if the later is the case then why should anyone believe the rest of his claims coming from un-named, un-verified sources?
Seriously don't you ever wonder why all you can find to support the mainstream narrative comes from corporate sponsored mind readers and un named, un verified sources?
I went though the "references" found some pictures and more claims. Most from un-named unverified sources.
Maybe you can point me to the evidence that would verify all the articles claims?
Unless it's going to take another year and a half. In that case I guess you can just do the usual and call me delusional for questioning the lack of evidence.
You might even want to call in CMG to play another "guilt by association" trip on me or borrow OR's magical musical monkeys to draw attention away from that same lack of evidence.
Neat trick, Michael can read Putin's mind. Awesome!
By using the words "seizing the Crimea" Michael is ignoring the verified fact that the people of Crimea voted overwhelming to re join the Russian Federation.
The word "seize" means to "take hold of suddenly and forcibly". In actual fact Putin did not "seize" Crimea. The people of Crimea made the choice to rejoin the Russian Federation.
Either Michael doesn't know what the word "seize" means or he's deliberately using that word dishonestly. And if the later is the case then why should anyone believe the rest of his claims coming from un-named, un-verified sources?
Seriously don't you ever wonder why all you can find to support the mainstream narrative comes from corporate sponsored mind readers and un named, un verified sources?
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
The FPRI's claim of independence should not be mistaken for non-partisan, nor should their deep roots within higher education imply an intent of a simple advisory role. In a speech given at the Heritage Foundation on June 5, 1991, former FPRI member Daniel Pipes stated that the FPRI is an activist organization driven by its own ideology:
"Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign policy; we have shared an abiding suspicion of the Soviet Union and other Communist states; and we have always maintained a strong interest in the promotion of democracy, free-enterprise, and the rule of law. Perhaps most controversially, the professional staff is not shy about the use of force; were we members of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led the charge." [4]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foreign_Policy_Research_Institute
Well, that would explain Michael's confusion over the definition of the word "seize", he's not confused at all he is deliberately using it dishonestly.
"Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign policy; we have shared an abiding suspicion of the Soviet Union and other Communist states; and we have always maintained a strong interest in the promotion of democracy, free-enterprise, and the rule of law. Perhaps most controversially, the professional staff is not shy about the use of force; were we members of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led the charge." [4]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foreign_Policy_Research_Institute
Well, that would explain Michael's confusion over the definition of the word "seize", he's not confused at all he is deliberately using it dishonestly.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Ukraine a Vector for GMO Poison's Spread Through EU
When the Washington Post chooses to pen an insulting, condescending editorial targeting entire nations speaking up against Western impropriety, one can just as well assume the precise opposite of whatever narrative the Post is trying to push forward is true.
Regarding American biotech companies and their attempts to infest the planet with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and in particular their attempts to corrupt the whole of Europe with their unwanted poison through a backdoor (Ukraine), has prompted Russia to speak up for their Eastern European neighbor. Up until the armed coup in 2013-2014, also known as the "Euromaidan," Ukraine had adamantly rejected GMOs.
With an obedient client regime now installed in Kiev, a series of political, economic and military decisions have been made that have more or less extinguished Ukraine as a sovereign nation state. Along with its extinguished sovereignty comes a complete lack of desire for self-preservation, and so, sowing one's fields with genetically tainted, unsafe, literal poison goes from being adamantly avoided, to being openly embraced.
This brings us back to the Washington Post and a recent editorial it has published. Titled, "Russia says Western investment in Ukraine’s farms is a plot to take over the world," it first attempts to make Russia's accusations that Monsanto is now moving in on Ukraine with plans to institute GMOs nationwide sound unfounded. That is until the Post itself admits that is precisely what Monsanto is doing. The pieces claims:
Ukraine has long tried to sell itself to Europe as the once-and-future breadbasket of the continent, promising that Western investment is the key to making its under-exploited black earth bloom.
But official Russia would like you to know that all this agricultural development talk is really just a secret plot to help companies like Monsanto take over the world.
Then the Post openly admits:
Genetically-modified cultivation was long banned in Ukraine – as was the sale of farmland.
Then admits:
But the association agreement signed between the European Union and Ukraine last year may have created new space for the potential introduction of genetically-modified crops in Ukraine.
Finally, the Post mentions Monsanto:
Monsanto – perhaps the most recognizable corporate name in genetically modified products – did express interest in investing in Ukraine last year. (It’s worth noting that the company operates in Russia as well, though not with GMOs, just as it has operated in Ukraine.)
Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/04/ukraine-vector-for-gmo-poisons-spread.html
When the Washington Post chooses to pen an insulting, condescending editorial targeting entire nations speaking up against Western impropriety, one can just as well assume the precise opposite of whatever narrative the Post is trying to push forward is true.
Regarding American biotech companies and their attempts to infest the planet with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and in particular their attempts to corrupt the whole of Europe with their unwanted poison through a backdoor (Ukraine), has prompted Russia to speak up for their Eastern European neighbor. Up until the armed coup in 2013-2014, also known as the "Euromaidan," Ukraine had adamantly rejected GMOs.
With an obedient client regime now installed in Kiev, a series of political, economic and military decisions have been made that have more or less extinguished Ukraine as a sovereign nation state. Along with its extinguished sovereignty comes a complete lack of desire for self-preservation, and so, sowing one's fields with genetically tainted, unsafe, literal poison goes from being adamantly avoided, to being openly embraced.
This brings us back to the Washington Post and a recent editorial it has published. Titled, "Russia says Western investment in Ukraine’s farms is a plot to take over the world," it first attempts to make Russia's accusations that Monsanto is now moving in on Ukraine with plans to institute GMOs nationwide sound unfounded. That is until the Post itself admits that is precisely what Monsanto is doing. The pieces claims:
Ukraine has long tried to sell itself to Europe as the once-and-future breadbasket of the continent, promising that Western investment is the key to making its under-exploited black earth bloom.
But official Russia would like you to know that all this agricultural development talk is really just a secret plot to help companies like Monsanto take over the world.
Then the Post openly admits:
Genetically-modified cultivation was long banned in Ukraine – as was the sale of farmland.
Then admits:
But the association agreement signed between the European Union and Ukraine last year may have created new space for the potential introduction of genetically-modified crops in Ukraine.
Finally, the Post mentions Monsanto:
Monsanto – perhaps the most recognizable corporate name in genetically modified products – did express interest in investing in Ukraine last year. (It’s worth noting that the company operates in Russia as well, though not with GMOs, just as it has operated in Ukraine.)
Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/04/ukraine-vector-for-gmo-poisons-spread.html
There is no doubt that Putin broke the agreement on Crimea and that Russian soldiers have been in the Ukraine. Putin intends to totally control the Ukraine. McCain called it shameful that the Democrats have stood by and let this happen without so much as saying a word against it. Putin has been busy trying to rehab Stalin for a reason--Putin is the ideological descendant of Stalin.
Are you taking lessons in Russian?