Here in the US, at most, they would have gotten arrested for trespassing and/or disturbing the peace, and maybe spent a weekend in jail and some community service.
Depends on the state,i'm sure.
Here,article 213 is up to 180 hours community service,UNLESS it is both pre-mediated and in group.Which is was.
Got off lightly.Especially when it wasn't the first time.
I don't see the Reagan response as anger. I see it as "now, this is happening".
As far as Putin's response, it's hard to reconcile negotiating with terrorists with a policy of "we don't negotiate with terrorists".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the attitude that disturbs me about the left's embrace of him in this crisis.
I happily shriek with, as Garton Ash puts it, "a certain instinctive glee, or schadenfreude, at seeing Uncle Sam (not to mention little John Bull) being poked in the eye" but I have to admit I've seen little of the left "embracing" him. Even the hardcore dudes who were like "Nope, Crimea is Russian, we've been calling for a referendum since 1995" made sure to say "Putin is bad, we don't like him." Stephen F. Cohen has come to the fore as the "Putin apologist" of choice to bash for a wide variety of people with political opinions ranging from neocon (a piece in The Daily Beast) to quasi-Trotskyist (Louis Proyect), but I think that's just propaganda to bash a guy who's not going along with the State Department-Committee on Public Information lie campaign.
Even the unreconstructed Stalinists I met at the Worcester fast food picket line a whiles back who had a back page article saying "Holomodor never happened, not at all, unh uh" were anti-Putin.
That being said: my drunken anarcho-syndicalist hetero life partner, as soon as he saw McCain with neo-Nazis on Infowars immediately took a kneejerk pro-Putin position. I saw a dude at the Venezuela solidarity rally with a sign reading something to the effect of "Maduro and Putin bringing peace to the world" but my comrade said he was a nutbag who used to show up with pro-Taliban signs. I'd have to check the crypto-Stalinists over at Workers World, maybe they've embraced Putin. Wouldn't be surprising, they think North Korea is a workers paradise...
He doesn't mean the real left, Comrade. He means the milquetoast left.
I thought the milquetoast left was all supporting the Obama-Kerry line?
Well, anyway, back to Counterpunch and the non-Ukrainey crimes of Western imperialism. For a break, one directed at the perfidious Albionese instead of the ugly AmeriKKKans:
Prince Andrew and Bahrain: The Island of Torture by PATRICK COCKBURN
And for shiznit and giggles, my Nigerian comrades:
Well, I haven't trusted John Locke since he went over to The Others. (Sorry, my television references are all dated.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't tell me what I can't do, goblin.
To be fair, though, the adoration thejeff claims to be seeing from the right certainly isn't from the mainstream, neocon righties that you see quoted ad nauseum in your daily paper. They're busy trying to portray Russia as the new "great enemy" of the American people, and in fact, freedom and safety around the world. I have seen tons of love from the usual leftie sources - hence my comment about a lot of anti-americanism coming out of the woodwork.
In fact, the American right (political and journalistic) seems to be tripping over themselves to hide the involvement of the extreme right-wing forces in Ukraine's ruling junta. Odd, no?
Does O'Reilly saying "Putin wins" and then adding a slam against Obama really surprise you, though? I think his comment(s) are, as usual, more anti-Obama than pro-anyone else.
As for the other august members of your list: perhaps they were following the same formula? Any chance to slam Obama, even if they have to hold their noses and "pay homage" to Putin?
But, you seem to be more aware of what these folks had to say. I will admit that I don't really listen much to them, on average.
And you never would have seen it a couple decades ago. Not attacking a President and praising a leader we're at least rivals with. Nor have I see the equivalent from Democrats about Republican leaders. At least not from anyone of equivalent political stature.
That's because no prior world rival has been as sexy as Sexy Putin. I mean, Gorbachev, Andropov, Brezhnev? These were not attractive men.
So my grandmother and my uncle once-removed( I don't really know if that's even the right term, English relative names are strange to me. Basically my dad's cousin) tell me as the right wing hooligans came, started the riot, burned the buildings and people down and promptly left the general opinion shifts even more towards pro-Russia then it already was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Itching for a Fight: The Senate and Ukraine by RENEE PARSONS
I read about this hearing earlier today. What a collection of stupid, ignorant, ineffectual cattle. Not a single dissenting voice was raised with regards to current policy or the nature of the current regime in Kiev. I love the disconnect between their ready provision of food to Ukrainian neo-nazis but not a cent for children in poverty in their own country. Unbelievable.
Please note: I am Canadian but my government is at least as bad as the American administration. Our conservatives have cost us dearly internationally; seeing Harper kowtowing in the Knesset was humiliating. Sending fighter planes and troops over to Poland is infuriating. All part of the "de-escalation" efforts though, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Fistbumps Comrade Locke]
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Biden's Son, Kerry Family Friend Join Ukrainian Gas Producer's Board
Saw a link to that titled 'okay, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but what the hell?'
Seriously, who thought that was a good idea?
From Benghazi to Boko Haram: Why I Support the Benghazi Inquiry by AJAMU BARAKA
Didn't Boko Haram do Lighter Shade of Pale?
They seemed so mellow...
Mexico isn't the 51st state of the USA; I guess that means there aren't any Mexicans working in the USA.
What's USA's policy on illegal immigrants,again?
That there's a process to be here legally. Next question?
Next question?
Is EU's immigration laws one hundred percent identical?
And it's rhetorical question,because there is a difference of following the protocol with unclear results(as i recall,you need a job offer,for starters) and...just crossing the border and start looking.Keep in mind that most of the western Ukraine are not very qualified.
I was kinda being facetious. I'm sure on paper there is an illegal immigration policy, but behind the scenes, actual policy changes with each administration.
There illegal...other than that...who knows?
Well there go the Tatars
Oh,seven thousand members of radical islamic organization,"which was mainly active in education and politics"(c)left Crimea and said organization's cell was effectively disbanded?
That's a shame(and this is sarcasm).Problem is,of course,that they didn't return to Turkey.From what i heard,now they are based somewhere around Lvov.
But,this is Ukrainian problem now,and possibly Polish.Not Russian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well there go the TatarsOh,seven thousand members of radical islamic organization,"which was mainly active in education and politics"(c)left Crimea and said organization's cell was effectively disbanded?
That's a shame(and this is sarcasm).
Problem is,of course,that they didn't return to Turkey.From what i heard,now they are based somewhere around Lvov.
But,this is Ukrainian problem now,and possibly Polish.Not Russian.
So tell us, why should they go to Turkey (is this some bizarre reference to the fact that the Crimea was once an Ottoman vassal)? And, no they are still a Russian problem as their traditional homeland is the Crimea - which as you have been making abundantly clear is apparently Russian. So the Russian authorities can't mistreat them and steal their land to the point where some leave and then you claim it is no longer a Russian problem. Though given what happened in 1944, the Russian authorities have form.......
And while we are at it, let's have some sources for your "7000 radical Islamists".
So tell us, why should they go to Turkey (is this some bizarre reference to the fact that the Crimea was once an Ottoman vassal)?
See?
Qualified man would never ask such a question,because he knows,for instance,where this particular cell comes from,who sponsors it,and,most important,WHERE IT GETS PERSONNEL.We all saw what a few thousand militants can do.Should i explain what this "education"really was?
And, no they are still a Russian problem as their traditional homeland is the Crimea
No,in case of these men it isn't.And not just because of nationality,but more importantly,because of religion.Namely,specific muslim sect.
So the Russian authorities can't mistreat them and steal their land
Oh,there is absolutely no point in that.You see,those are members of extremist organization and this is a felony.But,if they denounce their membership AND committed no other crimes,there is no punishment.
So of course they leave instead.Also,what land?
And while we are at it, let's have some sources for your "7000 radical Islamists".
This cell numbered upwards from 5k.This is radical islam organization.
Therefore,we have 7k radical islamists according to UN report.Two percent of Tatar population.Because,you see,average Tatar...they didn't leave.
Why should they?There is more money and benefits flowing their way in a single year than Ukraine spend in it's entire history(c)some leader of theirs.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You obviously have trouble understanding the meaning of the word 'source'.
Repeating your assertation, even behind a spoiler tag, is not in any way, evidence of what you claim. A 'shocking reveal', which is neither 'shocking', nor 'reveals' anything, is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
Quandary knows what a source is; he/she provided links to European news agencies, when he/she made allegations about the Nazi elements in the Ukrainian junta, and their history of threatening ethnic minorities (see, I picked an example that's in your favour, so you can't take this as an attack).
You are not helping your alleged side in the debate, or progressing the debate in general.
Are you familiar with the concept of the Poe?
Because your posting history heavily implies that your only aim is to prolong and derail the discussion.
I would suggest everyone ignore your inane posts from now on, except to provide counterpoints to commonly-held fallacies, without answering directly.
Quandary knows what a source is; he/she provided links to European news agencies
And i provide keywords for google.I think that in this topic average poster is either a)has knowledge of the subject,b)can do a little research or c)i can't possibly care less of what he thinks and who it ignores.
Because your posting history heavily implies that your only aim is to prolong
Which may very well be the case.Not only,but i see nothing wrong in a long
discussion.At least when both sides are qualified.Seriously,we,in this topic,have implication that 2% of tatars leaving crimea,by their own free will,is somehow opression of tatar population.
My logic OS just BSODed.
It all would be easier that instead of posting someone-sponsored(US probably)propaganda man just asked one question.
Why?
Well, he is responding to a post that says "Well there go the Tatars" not "UN condemns human rights abuses in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea."
Hmm, let's see, where in the world have we not talked about recently?
Oh yeah, India.
When are we gonna get hologram candidates?
Well, he is responding to a post that says "Well there go the Tatars" not "UN condemns human rights abuses in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea."
I think i can pick apart the whole report.
It's pretty biased,as expected.For example,space in it is dedicated to legal difference between ukainian and RF laws.
Odessa incident is censored as (censored).Mariupol supression i don't think is mentioned at all.
Rebels SDF are condemned,but the fact that every governor and his lapdog creates same illegal paramilitary units is not mentioned.
It's not the UN report,it's CNN news.
I also think i was actually wrong about numbers of that hizb ut-tahrir Turkish boys.
Either they hide really well,or seven thousand is total number of people that left crimea.Of which in Lvov based a little more than thousand.
So i re-checked my sources and who knew,there is 700 something turk militants,not 7000.7something k is total membership.
That's consistent with the report.And with the idea that they are now based in Lvov.
Also that's makes the post "tatar opression"even more...strange.
Talking about human rights violations,one of the girls who crafted molotov cocktails for Odessa incident committed suicide.
I have mixed feelings.
Well, he is responding to a post that says "Well there go the Tatars" not "UN condemns human rights abuses in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea."
I think i can pick apart the whole report.
It's pretty biased,as expected.
You are, after all, the expert on biased reports.
You are, after all, the expert on biased reports.
Yep.Because the first question i always ask is "Why?".
Second is"Who profits from it,and in what way?".This grants substantial immunity to propaganda,Kremlin-sponsored or otherwise.
While i'm here,i'm asking a question.
Who profits from spinning tatar theme AGAIN,especially when there is actually nothing to spin?
They are not opressed,they are not deported,on the contrary,steps are being taken to legalize their squatting(and,of course,most of them are squatters.Not all,but most).
You see,Russia has every right to evict them.
Last time i heard,squatting is illegal.
As a counterbalance, if nothing else.
Providing it is exactly my goal.
democratic voting as "illegal"
Democratic voting can be illegal.
Doesn't make it less democratic.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are, after all, the expert on biased reports.Well, he is responding to a post that says "Well there go the Tatars" not "UN condemns human rights abuses in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea."
I think i can pick apart the whole report.
It's pretty biased,as expected.
Let's be honest though - can the mainstream western media be trusted to report stories (like the situation in Ukraine) in a fair manner? Or will they repeat the lies and propaganda that their governments spew? Seeing how our media mindlessly, unquestioningly published falsehoods about Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, et al, I think one should probably look to alternate sources for a more reliable picture of what is happening over there.
You want biased reports? Watch western news agencies ignore massacres where people get locked into buildings and then burned alive by crowds of neo-nazi thugs. Watch western news ignore decades of provocations against the Russians by NATO, which continues to expand like some hungry beast. Watch western news denounce democratic voting as "illegal" while ignoring the criminal acts that led to a oligarchic, neo-nazi junta in Kiev.
So, maybe, just maybe, listening to Vlad's perspective might be useful? As a counterbalance, if nothing else.
You are, after all, the expert on biased reports.Yep.Because the first question i always ask is "Why?".
Second is"Who profits from it,and in what way?".
This grants substantial immunity to propaganda,Kremlin-sponsored or otherwise.
You really don't get it do you?
You see,Russia has every right to evict them.
You mean like Russia did in 1944? That worked out really well didn't it......
Watch western news ignore decades of provocations against the Russians by NATO, which continues to expand like some hungry beast.
Yup. Poland, Estonia etc were dragged kicking and screaming into NATO weren't they? While Russia always had their best interests at heart. Curse those evil liberal democratic societies in the West. Poland and co were always such enthusiastic members of the Warsaw Pact and Estonia, Ukraine and others were so happy being part of the Soviet Union. NATO, and the West more generally, have plenty of flaws, but to call NATO a "hungry beast" as though it is aggressively swallowing central and eastern European nations is laughable.
So, maybe, just maybe, listening to Vlad's perspective might be useful? As a counterbalance, if nothing else.
When he shows some balance, rigour and consistency then maybe. But I'm not holding my breath. My sides occasionally, but certainly not my breath.
You really don't get it do you?
I choose not to get it,yes.Otherwise i would be forced to quote emperor again,and this is impolite.
You mean like Russia did in 1944
No,in 44 there was collective responsibility for numerous(thousands!)acts of treason.
Now it's squatting.Surely even you can see the difference.
Yup. Poland, Estonia etc were dragged kicking and screaming into NATO
Why?Who profits from it?Because it's not Poles for sure.
call NATO a "hungry beast"
It's actually true.And we must also understand who pays for the show.
It's the US.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Watch western news ignore decades of provocations against the Russians by NATO, which continues to expand like some hungry beast.Yup. Poland, Estonia etc were dragged kicking and screaming into NATO weren't they? While Russia always had their best interests at heart. Curse those evil liberal democratic societies in the West. Poland and co were always such enthusiastic members of the Warsaw Pact and Estonia, Ukraine and others were so happy being part of the Soviet Union. NATO, and the West more generally, have plenty of flaws, but to call NATO a "hungry beast" as though it is aggressively swallowing central and eastern European nations is laughable.
So, maybe, just maybe, listening to Vlad's perspective might be useful? As a counterbalance, if nothing else.When he shows some balance, rigour and consistency then maybe. But I'm not holding my breath. My sides occasionally, but certainly not my breath.
NATO has doubled it's membership since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This, despite promises not to expand and no real justification for its existence. I stand by my words - unlike the U.S. administration, when it was making promises not to expand NATO is exchange for Russian support in the reunification of Germany.
no real justification for its existence
I object.Russia is still there,China is now superpower,and plan to weaken USSR by the means of Afghanistan backfired.
HARD.