One of my oldest and dearest friends has gone public on his support for Scottish Independence. I am greatly cheered by this. More thoughts later.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
John Goss
You said ALL – that was a lie. The BBC TV News at Ten is not a marginalised world news report – and it did mention the conversation you referred to.
As for the criminal investigation in Ukraine – perhaps you might wish to comment on some of the evidence that it revealed like the weapons being shot from positions known to have been held by Government forces, the identification of those they were seeking to question.
You also said in the past that the Ukrainian authorities were refusing to conduct an investigation – yet another lie that has now been revealed.
Noobie
If I’m stymying dissent on the Palestinian issue I’m being singularly unsuccessful – what you are really saying in your clearly anti-Semitic and homophopic manner is that you are not intellectually capable of handling views and lifestyles that differ from your own.
Anyway Resident Dissident you did not address the issue raised by Ben and probably never even read it. It is about what money was behind the coup. It did not include any of these other subscribers to the illegal coup not mentioned on mainstream media.
http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners
Here too is the report of who actually shot the first victims. Every time it is snipers from the protestors. That does not mean all the protestors were snipers because many had been sucked in on the NATO-funded wave.
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-riot-police-diplomats-013/
“More blackmail by Russia”
So when America imposes economic sanctions on a country it’s legitimate but if Russia wants Ukraine to pay the same price for their gas as the rest of Europe has to it’s blackmail?
Look Resident Dissident your own brain should tell you that since the illegal government took over and forced with violence media personnel of the Ukraine to resign for covering Russian reports, that they are hardly going to be unbiased. Yes they will make these false statements – they are a false government. Next they will be fabricating forensic evidence. Grow up and work it out.
The only inquiry that is likely to get at the truth of the shootings is an independent international inquiry (perhaps involving Africa and South America, countries with no direct interest) – not one conducted by a load of crooks.
John Goss
The only evidence you have produced is hearsay reported from one diplomat to another – you should know that such evidence would not be admissible in any proper court of law.
There is filmed evidence of snipers among government troops on the 20 February which was also corroborated by eye witnesses – but you obviously prefer hearsay evidence as it supports your political position and then you have to resort to clear lies about what the BBC reported. You have done the same on the missing Malaysia Airline where you reach a particular position on the flimsiest of evidence – you say that the plane must have been monitored by the US from Diego Garcia – when the incomplete evidence of its position show that it was flying away from Diego Garcia.
No one is unbiased – but it is clearly dishonesty on your part to think that your own position is not without bias and somehow of superior status to others who present more detailed evidence, which you then proceed to dismiss in your usual arrogant fashion.
I could point to those who have left RT been moved sideways for not following the party line.
The government of Ukraine is not illegal – the previous President fled the country, after on his own admission inviting Russian troops into the Crimea, and a new President was appointed by the Ukrainian Parliament. I suspect your knowledge of Ukrainian law is as negligible as it is on most other matters concerning that country.
Starting with your last “evidence” first. Yanukovich fled the country for fear of his life. The illegal government is illegal because it has not been voted in, though individual members of parliament are legitimate. It is formed from three parties which got together last year to overthrow the Yanukovich government with western finance.
Your trench is so deep I do not ever see you crawling out of it.
“The only inquiry that is likely to get at the truth of the shootings is an independent international inquiry (perhaps involving Africa and South America, countries with no direct interest) – not one conducted by a load of crooks.”
And even then if it didn’t agree with the position that you hold you would be able to find something that would allow you to question the independence of the inquiry so that you could continue to hold your original position based on your political viewpoint and your own narrow selection of evidence that suited that viewpoint.
I am quitre happy to change my opinion when I am convinced a change is needed. I did it over the topic of this thread – so don’t come that. You are the one entrenched.
“Your trench is so deep I do not ever see you crawling out of it.”
“The illegal government is illegal because it has not been voted in,”
And what does the Ukrainian Constitution say about what should happen when the President leaves?
Was it legal for Yanukovych to award c50% of state contracts to his son?
Were the actions of the Police against the Euromaidan demonstrators from November onwards legal?
I’m sure that our Ukrainian legal expert will be able to answer with chapter and verse.
“Your trench is so deep I do not ever see you crawling out of it.”
Who are you quoting – I am currently reading the excellent “The last man in Russia” by Oliver Bullough and he interestingly points out that one technique of the KGB goons employed by Literary Gazette in their attacks on Father Dimity was to use the same technique of placing their insults in inverted comments so as to give them, what they perceived to be a greater degree of authority. By these little things the true nature of people is revealed.
So a group of MPs in the UK can take over the houses of parliament by mob-led rule forcing Cameron to seek sanctuary in the US? That’s OK then? Yes?
Not that I believe Mr Goss to be a KGB goon – he is very clearly a member of the unpaid useful idiot class who do it all for love of the cause.
RD
The EU and US were quite happily supporting that corrupt dictator Yanukovitch until her reneged on the EU deal. That’s when the sh** hit the fan.
Over-throwing a Govt was illegal ,and for the European and US powers to be involved in financing it was also illegal. Tymoschenko made quite a bit of lolly before she was caught and she is still a darling of the “West”.
The police in most of the film I saw were coming off worst.Unprecedented that so many police were killed , injured and also shot by snipers. There were not that many police casualties in the Cairo uprisings.
An election had been agreed on by all powers, but since it wouldn’T have givem the result the West wanted they simply slotted their muppet Yats into the hot seat.
Our Govt in Britain dealt with the miners a whole lot worse.
RD. 10 43am
“The government of Ukraine is not illegal…”
That’s funny. I thought a coup that was sponsored by foriegn government could not possibly form a legal government. But I have to admit haven’t read the Ukrainian Constitution and I’m not a lawyer.
So I’m very keen for you to point me to the part of the Constitution makes the Ukrainian junta legal.
Thanks.
“So a group of MPs in the UK can take over the houses of parliament by mob-led rule forcing Cameron to seek sanctuary in the US? That’s OK then? Yes?”
If Cameron had been elected on a distinctly dodgy mandate (see Craig’s comments on the OSCE report on that election) and once elected had shown gross disregard for the laws of the country,had sought to crush legitimate political protest with violence and had invited in foreign troops to take control of part of the country – yes then I would have no problem with the Houses of Parliament voting to replace him when he had left the country.
As I’ve never read “The last man in Russia” by Oliver Bullough I have no idea whether what you say is true or not. I re-quoted myself because I thought it was a good summary of your entrenchment. I agree that Christians in Russia during Soviet days were persecuted and read a copy of Irina Ratushinskaya’s poems, much praised in the west. I’m currently reading a book which explained among other things how seaside rock is made and how the red lettering was put inside. Hope you enjoy yours too.
“If Cameron had been elected on a distinctly dodgy mandate (see Craig’s comments on the OSCE report on that election) and once elected had shown gross disregard for the laws of the country,had sought to crush legitimate political protest with violence and had invited in foreign troops to take control of part of the country – yes then I would have no problem with the Houses of Parliament voting to replace him when he had left the country.”
I hope your knowledge of history from reading “The last man in Russia” by Oliver Bullough is more accurate than the fantasy of modern history above.
Sofia
The legal story is slightly more complex than you might think – the gist of it is here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine
Mr Goss
You re quote yourself all the time – the use of inverted commas is entirely unnecessary.
I ssupect you will ask me to explain.
1. See Sofia Kibo Noh’s comment at 11.12 am.
2. No foreign troops were invited in.
3. There has been no vote of Yakunyets to power.
Get a grip for God’s sake man.
John Goss
And which of those elements in my hypothetical case would you argue did not happen in Ukraine under YAnukovych – we no the last one did because he admitted it this last week and expressed regret for having done so.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/02/ukraine-ousted-president-yanukovych-crimea-tragedy
“The legal story is slightly more complex than you might think – the gist of it is here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine”
Quoting you. What a cop out. You make things up. Sofia asks you to show where. You give a Wikipedia link and tell her to find it herself. WHy did you not just say “I made that bit up.” Or, if you didn’t, quote the section and paragraph. It seems your own knowledge of Ukrainian law is negligible whereas I never professed to be a Ukrainian lawyer.
I see that you lot arguing about Ukraine have taken over this thread, despite the bulk of your argument being here:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/03/deconstructing-putin/comment-page-4/
Can you go back over there please, just to keep related stuff together?
RD, I read your Guardian link which is more than you appear to do with those I provide. Here is a quote from it.
“Presidential elections will be held on 25 May. Yanukovych suggested that these could scarcely be considered legitimate because his eviction from office was unconstitutional.”
How does “eviction from office” equate with your assumption:
“The government of Ukraine is not illegal – the previous President fled the country, after on his own admission inviting Russian troops into the Crimea, and a new President was appointed by the Ukrainian Parliament.”?
RD. 11 26am
“…more complex than you might think…”
That’s why I asked you for clarification.
You claim that the Ukrainian government is legal. Please can you show me why.
…
Now where else have I heard that suggestion that an issue is too complex for us ordinary folk to comprehend?
John Goss
I didn’t make up – I just provided the most succinct summary I could quickly locate – I should note that it was you who first made the claim that the Government was illegal and was asked to provide the justification for your claim – SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE CLEARLY FAILED TO DO IN ANY FORM WHATSOVER. PUT UP OR SHUTUP
Sofia
Because Yanukovych was not entitled to block the 2004 Constitutional Amendment that gave the right to appoint the Government to the Rada – apart from 2 ministers.
Clark, I went to the thread you suggested but found myself alone.
“John Goss
I didn’t make up”
Show us then.