Odessa slaughter: How vicious mob burnt anti-govt activists alive

a reply to: sosobad

So you are taking the position of defending this man? Credibility going, going.....gone

No, I am absolutely not defending this man; I am attacking the credibility of your source. You have made the following positive assertion: he is firing at people trying to escape the burning building. You need to provide evidence to support that statement. All you can provide is a video posted on a site I have shown strong evidence of being a pop up propaganda site. I have pointed out there is therefore reason to believe that the video is edited to distort the truth. There is no time stamp, so we do not know for a fact that it was taken on the day of the Union Building false flag. It might have been taken at any number of public disturbances. We do not know who or what he is firing at, or why. If he truly is firing at people escaping from a burning building, why not show who he is firing at? If you are to retain your own credibility, it is you who need to provide evidence other than that provided by an FSB front organization.

For the record, I detest Svoboda, Right Sector and all other neo-Nazi groups... even if they call themselves the Crimean Self Defense Force. I reject all violence, and condemn violence for political change. I assert that fascism is fascism, whether you swear loyalty to a leader named Hitler or a leader named Putin. I reject anti-Semitism and Russophobia alike. Your turn. Where do you stand?

a reply to: VirusGuard

I called you out for talking daft so again I ask to see this use of force, it should be easy because tanks shooting buildings leave big chunks blown up, a mere machine gun will kill lots of people but you my freind cannot show me any of this "use of force" can you now

Buildings don't seize themselves, and the militia have been too well instructed to allow their crimes to be televised. In any event, the threat of violence is still violence.

David Stern of National Geographic wrote a good article about the disinformation via Social Media on both sides:

There have been some objective attempts to chronicle the Odessa events, notably by Roland Oliphant for the Telegraph and Howard Amos for the Guardian. But among the few honest efforts to bring order to what amounted to utter mayhem, there have been many more incomplete or one-sided versions, distortions, and sometimes outright falsehoods. As Ukraine teeters on the edge of civil war, much of the rage and division in the country, it seems, is fueled directly by social networks.

Complete article: The Twitter War: Social Media's Role in Ukraine Unrest

It's the same, what is going on here, like the more than 100 people burned in the house story.

A list of the people who died that day is found on Prawda Ukraine, still not everybody is identified:

Стали известны имена 42 погибших в Одессе 2 мая - СМИ

42 names of 46 dead people are listed, most died from gas poisoning.

a reply to: DJW001

no-one on ATS has ever defended Svoboda and its loathsome representatives

They have and not just Svoboda.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Now It becomes even clearer as to why they wanted him out.

Yup when your life is threaten by armed old WW2 man retired fascists whom were waiting for that day to occur, it all seems planned even the Day Victory to.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: sosobad

So you are taking the position of defending this man? Credibility going, going.....gone

No, I am absolutely not defending this man; I am attacking the credibility of your source. You have made the following positive assertion: he is firing at people trying to escape the burning building. You need to provide evidence to support that statement. All you can provide is a video posted on a site I have shown strong evidence of being a pop up propaganda site. I have pointed out there is therefore reason to believe that the video is edited to distort the truth. There is no time stamp, so we do not know for a fact that it was taken on the day of the Union Building false flag. It might have been taken at any number of public disturbances. We do not know who or what he is firing at, or why. If he truly is firing at people escaping from a burning building, why not show who he is firing at? If you are to retain your own credibility, it is you who need to provide evidence other than that provided by an FSB front organization.

For the record, I detest Svoboda, Right Sector and all other neo-Nazi groups... even if they call themselves the Crimean Self Defense Force. I reject all violence, and condemn violence for political change. I assert that fascism is fascism, whether you swear loyalty to a leader named Hitler or a leader named Putin. I reject anti-Semitism and Russophobia alike. Your turn. Where do you stand?

Come back when you have some evidence, hell even a scrap of evidence, all you write about is assumptions and call evidence that goes against what you think forged, I put this up with pictures and videos and you come back with "well I think" and "you have to presume, then you try to change the tune to what I think because you have no evidence, yes I am against fascism in all forms, and before you call me a Putin lover, show me where I have said as such.I suspect you are also lying about your stance too, you said yourself that this man is probably Svoboda

The man we have been discussing probably is Svoboda. He probably is a thug.

Then went on to defend him only 2 posts ago, why defend a man you suspect of being in svoboda? Don't ever talk about anyone's credibility again. I am finished with you now, you seemed to have shown your true colors today, if you are gonna reply put some evidence in it, if it is just gonna be your opinion let me tell you now, I don't care.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Vovin

Why don't I shoot myself in the head instead? Sounds more appealing.

In that case, please stop taking offense at being called "pro-Russian."

I'm taking more offense at your inability to comprehend politics, probably resulting from an education earned from watching TV. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be calling me "pro-Russian". But you don't. You're merely pushing an agenda where anybody who doesn't portray the same perception as you is thus your enemy, and you've made it clear that Russians are your enemy- yet you have not reasoned as to why that is even the case.

originally posted by: Siddharta
There are always radicals, who start the bad things. On the ground people have to die. But then again you have radicals in forums, who never would go on the battlefield, but spread all the hate to make other people fight on the ground.

Vovin, once I asked a mental sick friend to give himself a chance and try a session with a psychiatrist. He said exactly the same as you did here: "Why don't I shoot myself in the head instead? Sounds more appealing."

It was dark humour, by the way.

And as for your other comment about how I'm apparently just a radical who would never personally involve myself in real world affairs- shows how very little you know about me, which isn't very surprising considering that we are all anonymous individuals on a message board. That's why I don't bother making assumptions about what other members do when they are away from the keyboard, because it's not really my business.

Edit: just a disclaimer: I view ATS from my phone so it's difficult to review all new posts before I start replying to them. I wrote these two posts before I even saw wrabbit's warning, although I tried to be more defensive than otherwise.

a reply to: Siddharta

Official investigation with NCIS?



Today:

Meanwhile, the acting head of Ukraine’s presidential administration, Sergey Pashinsky, said Kiev’s military operation in the Donetsk region towns of Krasny Liman, Slavyansk and Kramatorsk was in its its final stage, adding that “a lot of separatists have been eliminated during the operation.” He would not provide any figures thought.

Two months ago:



Killing career...

a reply to: maghun So you are against an official investigation?

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Yup when your life is threaten by armed old WW2 man retired fascists whom were waiting for that day to occur, it all seems planned even the Day Victory to.

Okay, but what exactly does this have to do with why Ukraine wanted him out?

a reply to: Siddharta

The Hague receives the complaint.

Only not interested in ukrainian officials investigation, they are murderers and not official. But the killings achived their goal:



Soon Odessa will have referendum too, and the remnant of Ukraine.

a reply to: maghun They are already dreaming of the next referendum to go with Russia in Sloviansk. This would be a disappointment, for Russia surely does not want them.

The referendum was only held in a few towns, not whole east of Ukraine. No rules, no controle. A reporter of Germany's BILD voted four times to proof, this was a farce. A Russian reporter wished that "they" get him for that.
Even in Moscou they voted.

But you are right. Those people in the street can not be ignored. Many want change. Banks are closed, ATMs don't have any money anymore. Things are getting worse and worse. Russia won't be there to change this. It is time to make people in Ukraine realize, that they are the only ones who can change this. And only with hard work. Together. Not against each other.

These will be hard times to come for them. Whatever they do next.

a reply to: maghun

But the killings achived their goal:

So you admit that the goal of the Union building fire was to stoke anti-Kiyev sentiments?

a reply to: Vovin

I'm taking more offense at your inability to comprehend politics, probably resulting from an education earned from watching TV.

Why take offense when you can educate?

If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be calling me "pro-Russian".

Since I do not know what I am talking about, why don't you explain yourself? Here is your chance to help a fellow ATS member deny ignorance. What should I be calling you?

But you don't.

Instead of phrasing all this as an ad hominem attack, which considerably weakens your argument, why not explain to me so that others as well, why you believe "do not know what I am talking about?" I have, in various posts, explained why the brand of crony capitalism in Putin's Russia meets the definition of "fascism," how the seizure of Crimea was conducted in an illegal fashion, pointed out that there is a campaign to blacken the legitimate interim government by exaggerating the influence of its right wing members, called into question the credibility of certain anti-Ukraine websites and generally been very insistent on having objective confirmation of statements before considering factual. What, exactly, do you think I do not know about?

You're merely pushing an agenda where anybody who doesn't portray the same perception as you is thus your enemy, and you've made it clear that Russians are your enemy- yet you have not reasoned as to why that is even the case.

I have made it clear that I am opposed to anti-Semitism, fascism, totalitarianism, political violence, lies and deceit. Why do you believe that must make the Russians my enemy? You seem to have a guilty conscience to come to that conclusion. In fact, I like Russians, and if anything, I am trying to get them to understand that when the victory celebrations are over, their young men are likely to start dying as NATO wreaks its ugly carnage. Putin must be stopped before he angers the Chinese and Iran as well.

Now, please be so kind as to explain why, given your unwavering support of Russian actions in Ukraine, why you do not consider yourself to be "pro-Russian." I consider it an honor to be accused of being "pro-democracy." What's wrong with being "pro-Russian?"

This BBS system is not allowing me to post a point by point reply!

Come back when you have some evidence, hell even a scrap of evidence,

That is what I have been asking of you. You are the one making definitive claims, you are the one who needs to provide the evidence.

all you write about is assumptions and call evidence that goes against what you think forged,

I write about your assumptions; for example, you seem to assume that police records cannot be forged or videos edited to create a false impression.

I put this up with pictures and videos and you come back with "well I think" and "you have to presume

Exactly. If you cannot eliminate other interpretations of your evidence, it is not evidence at all.

then you try to change the tune to what I think because you have no evidence,

I am, not the one who needs evidence because I am not the one making allegations. You are. If I can show that you cannot eliminate my interpretation of the evidence, your evidence cannot be considered supportive of your claim.

yes I am against fascism in all forms, and before you call me a Putin lover, show me where I have said as such.

What do you think of a group of armed thugs, led by someone who was once a new-Nazi, storming buildings and declaring themselves the new authority? Just to be clear, this is the one I am talking about:

Mr. Gubarev is a curious messenger for anti-fascism. When he was young, he belonged to a Russian neo-Nazi group, which uses a stylized swastika as a logo.

Miroslav Rudenko, a longtime friend of Mr. Gubarev's and a fellow Donetsk Republic leader, acknowledged that the people's governor "used to belong to patriotic movements that are close to skinheads, but it wasn't extreme."

online.wsj.com...

I suspect you are also lying about your stance too, you said yourself that this man is probably Svoboda .

Why do you suspect I am lying about my stance? The person we were discussing was probably Svoboda, just as the individual above was probably an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi skinhead. I find both repellent, but am willing to accept their participation in the political process so long as it is non-violent. I hope that the public will see them for what they are and reject the opinions.

Then went on to defend him only 2 posts ago, why defend a man you suspect of being in svoboda? Don't ever talk about anyone's credibility again. I am finished with you now, you seemed to have shown your true colors today, if you are gonna reply put some evidence in it, if it is just gonna be your opinion let me tell you now, I don't care.

Where did I defend him? Please provide a quotation and link, or else be seen for the liar you are. Incidentally, I cannot help but note that you have not affirmed that you are not anti-Semitic. That, at least, shows a certain amount of pride in your political beliefs.

edit on 12-5-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-5-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-5-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: DJW001

This BBS system is not allowing me to post a point by point reply

Maybe the system is sick of listening to you too

a reply to: sosobad

Come back when you have some evidence, hell even a scrap of evidence,

That is what I have been asking of you. You are the one making definitive claims, you are the one who needs to provide the evidence.

all you write about is assumptions and call evidence that goes against what you think forged,

I write about your assumptions; for example, you seem to assume that police records cannot be forged or videos edited to create a false impression.

I put this up with pictures and videos and you come back with "well I think" and "you have to presume

Exactly. If you cannot eliminate other interpretations of your evidence, it is not evidence at all.

To be continued...

a reply to: sosobad

You come back when you have a scrap of evidence. You have made a positive assertion, you need to provide solid evidence to back it up. I have shown how your evidence was flawed. I do not need to prove any of the alternative explanations, you need to definitively rule them out.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: sosobad

You come back when you have a scrap of evidence. You have made a positive assertion, you need to provide solid evidence to back it up. I have shown how your evidence was flawed. I do not need to prove any of the alternative explanations, you need to definitively rule them out.

Me=Videos and pictures posted

You=Opinion

if you are gonna reply put some evidence in it, if it is just gonna be your opinion let me tell you now, I don't care.

Have a nice day