Your posts are getting sillier. If Strelkov is the officer commanding the separatist forces at Donetsk, what further proof do I need that he is getting instructions from Moscow?
And how is that proof orders come from Moscow?
And what further proof do I need that he is considered a "reputable" source for news items in Russia?
What proof do you need other than a Western new article that's clearly saying a news article says something that it doesn't, or other than the fact the has a few thousand twitter followers? How about, oh I don't know, actual proof? Do you need a dictionary to explain what the word means?
You claim to have a news article dissing Strelkov's news release a few hours later and that both sources - i.e Strelkov and your own source - are Kremlin sanctioned.
I claim no such thing. Show me where I said Igor's story is Kremlin sanctioned, show me where I said the vesti article is Kremlin sanctioned. Are you just not reading? That's your argument. I haven't said Igor is Kremlin controlled, I haven't said the Russian media only publishes stories vetted by the Kremlin, those are both your arguments. I don't "claim" anything. You provided the story, I followed the links to the sources they provide, and I found out what the sources say and gave you a translation of it. You could have just as easily done that yourself. Just because you don't verify your sources doesn't mean I'm making "claims". You can just as easily go verify your sources. But you obviously haven't bothered yet. Still have no problem being an agent of propaganda?
All that means is that the Kremlin decided to ditch story #1 and replace it a few hours later. Exactly what they did. Because Strelkov then replaced his first story - the dead bodies story - with a story stating that the aircraft was shot down by Ukrainian jets.
No, it only means that IF Igor is an agent for the Kremlim. Something you still have offered 0 proof for aside from claiming "He's the officer commanding the separatist forces at Donetsk." That isn't proof he takes orders from the Kremlin. That's proof he's in charge of a rebel faction in Ukraine. Can you prove those rebels are Russian? Can you prove those rebels take orders from Russia?
To refute my position that Kremlin inspired nonsense news is believed by a large part of the Russian population, you would have to show that the "Dead bodies story" came from an unknown, non-reputable source and was discarded by all mainstream news - the way the New York Times would discard any National Enquirer story. And you would have to show that this happens consistently. You can't do any of this. And to your credit, you avoid even trying.
So to discredit one story, I have to show that it happens consistently? No, to discredit one story, I only have to discredit the one story. You posted an article, without verifying its source. I did. I followed the link, in the article you posted, to the article that it described and found the article did not say what it claimed it did. In other words, the story you posted, the source you used, in that one case, made a complete fabrication. Why do I need to show it happens "consistently"? If a news agency will fabricate news once, that should be enough to make you critical off all of its stories. If it doesn't, that's your gullibility and desire to believe propaganda, not my problem. I don't have to show where the dead bodies story came from, that wasn't the point I was making. I'll try it one more time....
Your "news" sources told you that Russian mainstream media was reporting the MH17 was filled with dead bodies. Your news source was not only wrong, it flat out lied. The story that they themselves linked to (in the article, I literally clicked the link in the article you posted and nothing more) was listing crazy conspiracy theories that it labelled as crazy conspiracy theories. Therefore, the "news" sources you used, fed you a fabrication. They gave you a lie. They told you something untrue that they knew was untrue. This isn't about the Kremlin disavowing the story, this isn't about the Kremlin changing their mind, this is about an article that you posted being a complete fabrication, a total and utter misrepresentation, a propaganda piece. You can try it twist it all you want to make it sound like I'm debating the Kremlin... I'm not. I'm telling you that you read, believed, shared and defended a "news" article that was 100% false, a complete fabrication, nothing more than anti-Russian propaganda. I don't have to show anything more than that to establish that your sources are fallible and that you are fallible. Your sources are willing to make a fabrication and you are willing to believe those fabrications without checking them. That is my point.
My point has nothing to do with the Kremlin. I'm not saying the Kremlin doesn't invent stories, I never did. I'm not saying Russian media doesn't spin propaganda tales. I'm saying that you lashed out about Russians and their unwillingness to question news they are fed by their media, while you simultaneously did the exact same thing. That's my point, nothing more. And you can keep going back to the Kremlin all you want, this particular point has nothing to do with the Kremlin, and everything to do you with you falling for, passing on and defending a story that is nothing but propaganda.
So what you will do is to re state your original argument again and again to make it seem as if I am being obtuse. You will probably go on for about 3 pages of tedious, ranting posts before you finally tell everybody that you've "won" and lose interest.
HA! That's rich. From the guy who said "you're a troll and obtuse" and then claimed to have blocked me and ran away. That's your technique you're describing, not mine. I've never claimed to have "won" nor have I "lost interest" and stop posting.
Nice try. Let's move on.
Regarding your second argument - the one that tells me that you're the only person on the board who recognized the tank was Ukrainian, not Russian. First, I don't recall ever seeing that video. So why would I comment on it.
Good question. You did post an article that cited the video as proof. Are you again admitting you post articles without being critical of them or verifying this source? That's admitting you are, at best, a gossip monger, and at worst, making an effort to remain ignorant to spread propaganda.
And I didn't say I'm the only one on the board that recognized they Ukrainian, I'm saying I did. I have no idea if others did or not. I am, however, saying that it's pretty telling that the US state department released a statement to go with the video saying that it showed a Russian T72 crossing the border. Then amended it and said it was a Russian T64M. Tell me, do you think that US military intelligence and the US state department can't tell the difference between a T72 and a T64? Look, take 2 seconds. Google "T64". Notice the huge laser rangefinder is on the left side of the turret (the big round thing). Notice the right side is empty. Look at the slope of the frontal chassis armour on both the upper and lower glacis (sloping parts). Now look at a T72. Notice the longer barrel, the laser rangefinder in the right side of the turret, the distinctive commanders copula (the hatch on top with all the gizmos around it). Now, would I expect average Joe to know that those are some distinct differences? No, of course not. Would I expect US and Ukrainian military intelligence and the US state department? Absolutely. And do you know how I found the video by the way? A link from a report by the state department. It was offered as their only 2 pieces of "proof" that Russia is sending equipment to Ukraine. Again, this is a blatant lie. They are claiming it's a T64M, when it isn't. It obviously isn't. And this is after they claimed it was a T72. I guess they realized maybe a few people would be able to recognize the difference between a T72 and T64, but figured not many would recognize the distinctive smoke grenade launchers that differentiate a T64M from a Ukrainian T64 BULAT. But the point is they lied. They are still lying. And you say I should trust them? That they are more reliable than other sources of media? Why? When I catch someone lying to me, I don't say, "Ok, this other guy lied to me also, but he did it more often so I'll trust you." I say, "Fuck off you lying piece of shit." I don't NEED to accept the stories either side tell me. I can reject them both as liars. And I do. It's you that wants so badly to trust the Western media.
Second, I've already told you that I do not go by vehicle identification. It's pretty clear that Russia is supplying arms to the separatists. Why is this? Let me give 1 circumstantial piece of proof. Much of the fighting back in May involved the separatists seizing control of the border crossings between Donbas and Russia and much of the fighting now involves the Ukrainian army attempting to seize those border crossings back. If Russia was not funneling aid (including ammunition, recruits and equipment) to the separatists, then there would be no need to control the border. You get that proposition, no?
I get that you have provided 1 piece of circumstantial evidence. I don't believe there is such a thing as circumstantial proof. Your fingerprints at the scene of a crime are circumstantial evidence. We can prove you were there at some point since the walls were last cleaned, that's all. A video the clearly shows you committing the crime, a verified recording of you admitting you did it, those are proof. Non-circumstantial evidence would be something like a rebel being captured after a firefight by Ukrainian forces with Russian military identification, an intercept communique from the Kremlin to rebel forces, etc. You say why seize the border? Tell me, if your knowledge of military and war is so limited that you don't even consider how difficult it is for "military intelligence" to confuse one model of tank with another, which is basically the entire reason they exist and something they've become very good at over the years, what do you think qualifies you to dismiss the multitude of tactical and strategic reasons a fighting force would secure a route of egress? Actually, it's just common sense. Do you know what the first thing France did after Germany became an occupied nation in 1945? They fortified the roads back into France, they established defensive positions for a withdrawl back into France. They ensured there were adequate forms of obstruction available close by to slow a German advance into France. Do you know what the first thing any fighting force does when planning an operation is? Looking at the ways out. Find the exit strategies, the easiest routes out, and work backwards from there. So when Ethnic Russians, near Russia, decide to rebel, it makes sense that the first thing they do is secure a route of egress.
Could they be getting equipment from Russia? Absolutely. I've said it before, I believe they probably are. But there's no proof of it. And the fact that they happened to secure egress routes into friendly territory isn't "proof" of it. The US has the most sophisticated spy network in the world. Europe isn't far behind. Where's the imagery to backup your claim? Where's the photographs from satellites and spy planes and human intelligence operators on the ground showing this equipment moving into Ukraine? They managed to get photos of a stockpile of equipment near the border that grew, then shrank, then grew again... they can get satellite footage of the rebel troops positions, they can pinpoint where missile launches come from.... but they can't get a single shot of Russian equipment actually moving across the border? That isn't suspicious to you? Surely they have it if it's happening, so why aren't they sharing it?
And so all the fighting would be taking place around the cities away from the border. And this ties in perfectly with what Western and Ukrainian news sources tell me. And therefore, those news releases are believable and make sense.
So that's your standard now? If it's believable, you believe it? Some Russian media outlets say Ukraine has fired into Russia because they want to force Russia to invade so that the West will come in with their militaries as they're incapable of dealing with the insurgency themselves. That's believable. It makes sense. I don't believe it for a second though... But by your standard of news, it's perfectly acceptable. I should give you the links, you can start posting it as real news, and defend it vehemently. I think I can find a version of that story on "freeluganskrepublic.com" (not sure if real site, pulled it out of my ass to prove a point) or some other equally "reliable" source, surely something as "consistently reliable" as democraticunderground?
There are probably a number more reasons I can think of to prove that Russia delivers equipment, but dealing with you is a waste of time.
In the meantime, you haven't answered any of my other points. Nor do you ever.
I look forward to 5 more posts from you today saying exactly what your last post says. Congratulations. I'm going to nominate you as TERB Troll of the Year.
I'm sorry, which points? The ones that are just pulled out of thin air? Like what? "My Russian facebook friends believe it."
I try to address every point you've made, if I'm missed one, feel free to put it back up here.
