Ukraine's capital is literally revolting

[Borus]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26503478

>BBC
oh god lol

[Exterminator]

>BBC
oh god lol

So a particular news source shouldn't even be looked at just because it's from the west.

Yep, i'm the one with a shortsighted view of the world..

[Antonio.]

IF NATO had the right to do the same with Kosovo, than Russia has with Crimea.
IF CRIMEA AND KOSOVO have the right to become seperate countries, so do SCOTLAND and TEXAS.

The difference is that Ukrainians weren't killing Russian civilians prior to the invasion.

[Borus]

So a particular news source shouldn't even be looked at just because it's from the west.

Yep, i'm the one with a shortsighted view of the world..

Funny because I never said that, but you're the one basing your whole view of the world on one news source without even questioning the authenticity, or looking beyond the surface of mass media.

[Petarda]

The difference is that Ukrainians weren't killing Russian civilians prior to the invasion.

Because Russia is stronger.

[aleksandar_gojkovic]

The difference is that Ukrainians weren't killing Russian civilians prior to the invasion.

Just curiouse, when USA kills innocent civilians and invades a country it is ok?

[Jaka_Lah]

Just curiouse, when USA kills innocent civilians and invades a country it is ok?

Yes. Please do tell me how you will tell a country of which the president is keeping a briefcase to destroy a continent with him at all times to not do something.. please do tell.

[Exterminator]

Funny because I never said that, but you're the one basing your whole view of the world on one news source without even questioning the authenticity, or looking beyond the surface of mass media.

So can you please point out the part of my post that said i focused on one news source? Cause i seem to of quoted multiple in this very topic..
Also, just how is the source not authentic? The article provides genuine video footage, unless you are going to claim it is fake. Also, the only thing that says anything against it is your text-based input on a online forum where anybody can type almost anything. Let alone the fact that you have not even been able to cite any sources against it, and your very argument is plain.. illogical.
You really think another country takes your home and the entire state will just sit like Rosy birds cheering Russia, nobody standing up and opposing them?..
Also as you seem to claim that mass media is in some large conspiracy to hide information, please tell me the Borus theory of Ukrainian politics.

Also, just how do you explain this then?

>BBC
oh god lol

[Borus]

So can you please point out the part of my post that said i focused on one news source? Cause i seem to of quoted multiple in this very topic..
Also, just how is the source not authentic? The article provides genuine video footage, unless you are going to claim it is fake. Also, the only thing that says anything against it is your text-based input on a online forum where anybody can type almost anything. Let alone the fact that you have not even been able to cite any sources against it, and your very argument is plain.. illogical.
You really think another country takes your home and the entire state will just sit like Rosy birds cheering Russia, nobody standing up and opposing them?..
Also as you seem to claim that mass media is in some large conspiracy to hide information, please tell me the Borus theory of Ukrainian politics.

Also, just how do you explain this then?

Please stop putting words in my mouth. You gave me one source, and it was BBC's, main mass media of the West, on top of that you admit that it is authentic, at least from your POV, which indeed implies that you focus on one news source. You want my sources? You should've asked earlier when I followed a live discussion of an Ukranian living in Crimea saying absolutely nothing is going on and the media is blowing it up as usual. Besides that, I have followed a few lectures online from my university who were held by Ukranians stating the facts plain and simple: the people don't know what they want, and explain the how's and why's. All you seem to do is circlejerking recycled opinions that have been countered twice now by me alone, so you try to personally put me in a bad light by implying I'm all hurdur conspiracy because I pointed out the lack of your perspective. What exactly is illogical in my 'arguments'? If you like to spit, then why don't you try and specify your saliva.

Now, besides your above post, it's also pretty remarkable that you, by your logic, fully support that if a government isn't 'sufficient' for the people, the people (on the streets) have all rights to do whatever they want, meaning you support Nazism as well? Because that's exactly how it went back in the 1933-1939 days a bit to the western side of Europe. People unhappy -> elect Hitler and no one intervenes -> WW2 Perhaps another example in hopes to get this through your head: Imagine, in your country, there are riots protesting against the government. Now, the government flees, without election, the protestors (note: not 'all' people ) decide to put up a government that you do not agree with. I can't put it any more simple than this.

Let me give you a fair tip of advice; To get to know a situation, try to look at it in both ways, which you not only failed, but for the sake of the argument REFUSE to do so to not make yourself look stupid. Also, perhaps use other types of source besides BBC and Wikipedia to not make a fool out of yourself. Now that I feel that I've said everything in here, and in previous posts, pure out of informational purposes, you may continue circlejerking your logical fallacies to not making it look like you indeed have no idea what you're talking about. I'm only going to reply to your answer to the question I stated above.

Here, enjoy a media source at the opposite side of BBC and CNN: http://rt.com/ they also have cool video footage!!

[Antonio.]

Just curiouse, when USA kills innocent civilians and invades a country it is ok?

No, but not relevant to your first sentence that I quoted.

[Exterminator]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. You gave me one source, and it was BBC's, main mass media of the West, on top of that you admit that it is authentic, at least from your POV, which indeed implies that you focus on one news source. You want my sources? You should've asked earlier when I followed a live discussion of an Ukranian living in Crimea saying absolutely nothing is going on and the media is blowing it up as usual. Besides that, I have followed a few lectures online from my university who were held by Ukranians stating the facts plain and simple: the people don't know what they want, and explain the how's and why's. All you seem to do is circlejerking recycled opinions that have been countered twice now by me alone, so you try to personally put me in a bad light by implying I'm all hurdur conspiracy because I pointed out the lack of your perspective. What exactly is illogical in my 'arguments'? If you like to spit, then why don't you try and specify your saliva.

Now, besides your above post, it's also pretty remarkable that you, by your logic, fully support that if a government isn't 'sufficient' for the people, the people (on the streets) have all rights to do whatever they want, meaning you support Nazism as well? Because that's exactly how it went back in the 1933-1939 days a bit to the western side of Europe. People unhappy -> elect Hitler and no one intervenes -> WW2 Perhaps another example in hopes to get this through your head: Imagine, in your country, there are riots protesting against the government. Now, the government flees, without election, the protestors (note: not 'all' people ) decide to put up a government that you do not agree with. I can't put it any more simple than this.

Let me give you a fair tip of advice; To get to know a situation, try to look at it in both ways, which you not only failed, but for the sake of the argument REFUSE to do so to not make yourself look stupid. Also, perhaps use other types of source besides BBC and Wikipedia to not make a fool out of yourself. Now that I feel that I've said everything in here, and in previous posts, pure out of informational purposes, you may continue circlejerking your logical fallacies to not making it look like you indeed have no idea what you're talking about. I'm only going to reply to your answer to the question I stated above.

Here, enjoy a media source at the opposite side of BBC and CNN: http://rt.com/ they also have cool video footage!!

First of all, what the hell?

Most countries in the world had their governments brought about by the people standing up to oppressive governments.
Drawing a baseless conclusion that "You support people standing up to their government? You're a nazi!" is an insult, and not only do you disrespect the millions that died in the Second world war and all of the nazi party's activities but the world community at large.
Then your second conclusion, "You think BBC is authentic? You focus just on it!", but you justify Russia Today to be authentic... and for the record, i actively check many websites including your championed Russia Today. Mind you, Russia Today never said there is no resistance in Crimea.

What exactly is illogical in my 'arguments'? If you like to spit, then why don't you try and specify your saliva.

There are 1.9 million people in crimea, and you claim that not a single person of those 1.9 million people is offended by a foreign country walking into their home with guns, shoving guns into the face of your country's soldiers in the area and capturing/stealing planes/ships belonging to the ukrainian government stationed in crimea.
Then, you claim that there is absolutely nothing going on. Just how is that not illogical?
There is evidence all over the web that there are large scale protests all over crimea against Russian occupation, but i doubt Russia Today glorifies it in detail.
Ps:

You should try to look beyond your sources of mass media

Imagine, in your country, there are riots protesting against the government. Now, the government flees, without election, the protestors (note: not 'all' people ) decide to put up a government that you do not agree with. I can't put it any more simple than this.

If the president of the country has fled, then a acting president needs to be appointed in his place. The maidan protestors did not put in the acting president, the Ukranian government did.
Also, can you please cite me where it says that the protestors are ruling the streets? The government is the legally elected government comprised of the representatives of the people. The acting president is elected democratically by the Ukrainian parliament as is their policy, the same parliament which was elected by the people. Contrary to what you keep repeating, nobody from the maidan simply walked into the senate and became the president. The government is still the legally elected government chosen by the people of Ukraine. Maidan protesters were just protestors, just because the government took heed of their protest doesn't mean the maidan goers are running the country.

Putin saw his chance to grab Crimea and sevastopol, which is a very powerful strategic base and he took it. Putin is being a bully, and regardless of what either sources of media paint him out to be, he has no right to annex another country.
P.s: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/03/14/034244/russia-blocks-internet-sites-of-putin-critics For the glory of free media!

[Borus]

Yet still you failed to answer my question, continued to recycle and kept attacking me personally for the sake of argument.

[Exterminator]

Sorry for the incoming wall of text. Most of the space is taken by quotes 

Yet still you failed to answer my question, continued to recycle and kept attacking me personally for the sake of argument.

Question marked sentences in your post:
 

You want my sources?

Never said i want your sources, but you seem to of been gracious enough to give them to me anyway

What exactly is illogical in my 'arguments'?

My answer:

Again, you took only a part of what i said and tried to "circlejerk" it in your own words. There are 1.9 million people in crimea, and you claim that not a single person of those 1.9 million people is offended by a foreign country walking into their home with guns, shoving guns into the face of your country's soldiers in the area and capturing/stealing planes/ships belonging to the ukrainian government stationed in crimea.
Then, you claim that there is absolutely nothing going on. Just how is that not illogical?
There is evidence all over the web that there are large scale protests all over crimea against Russian occupation, but i doubt Russia Today glorifies it in detail. Given the fact that you rigorously claim that Crimea is peaceful while there is clear evidence against it based solely on the claims "Russia today said so" makes me question who exactly is the one with limited perspective..

I even quoted the question specifically

Now, besides your above post, it's also pretty remarkable that you, by your logic, fully support that if a government isn't 'sufficient' for the people, the people (on the streets) have all rights to do whatever they want, meaning you support Nazism as well?

My answer:

Most countries in the world had their governments brought about by the people standing up to oppressive governments.
Drawing a baseless conclusion that "You support people standing up to their government? You're a nazi!" is an insult, and not only do you disrespect the millions that died in the Second world war and all of the nazi party's activities but the world community at large.

continued to recycle

The only point where i recycled anything is when you recycled your claim of maidan protestors ruling the country, when i had previously pointed out that the government is the legally elected government. No protestor just walked into the senate and became the president. Feel free to point out anything else i recycled.

kept attacking me personally for the sake of argument.

My references to you in my post:

Drawing a baseless conclusion that "You support people standing up to their government? You're a nazi!" is an insult, and not only do you disrespect the millions that died in the Second world war and all of the nazi party's activities but the world community at large.

Then your second conclusion, "You think BBC is authentic? You focus just on it!", but you justify Russia Today to be authentic...

and you claim that not a single person of those 1.9 million people is offended by a foreign country walking into their home with guns, shoving guns into the face of your country's soldiers in the area and capturing/stealing planes/ships belonging to the ukrainian government stationed in crimea.
Then, you claim that there is absolutely nothing going on. Just how is that not illogical?

Also, can you please cite me where it says that the protestors are ruling the streets?

Contrary to what you keep repeating, nobody from the maidan simply walked into the senate and became the president. The government is still the legally elected government chosen by the people of Ukraine. .

Your references to me in your post:

You gave me one source, and it was BBC's, main mass media of the West, on top of that you admit that it is authentic, at least from your POV, which indeed implies that you focus on one news source.

All you seem to do is circlejerking recycled opinions that have been countered twice now by me alone, so you try to personally put me in a bad light by implying I'm all hurdur conspiracy because I pointed out the lack of your perspective.

Ps: Also false. You're the only one "circlejerking" anything. Feel free to prove my wrong by quoting exactly what i circlejerked.

Now, besides your above post, it's also pretty remarkable that you, by your logic, fully support that if a government isn't 'sufficient' for the people, the people (on the streets) have all rights to do whatever they want, meaning you support Nazism as well?

Perhaps another example in hopes to get this through your head: Imagine, in your country, there are riots protesting against the government. Now, the government flees, without election, the protestors (note: not 'all' people ) decide to put up a government that you do not agree with. I can't put it any more simple than this.

Let me give you a fair tip of advice; To get to know a situation, try to look at it in both ways, which you not only failed, but for the sake of the argument REFUSE to do so to not make yourself look stupid.

Ps: Looking both ways doesn't mean looking at russia today alone. Given this whole argument is sparked based on you claiming the BBC is inauthentic because it's western media

Also, perhaps use other types of source besides BBC and Wikipedia to not make a fool out of yourself.

Now that I feel that I've said everything in here, and in previous posts, pure out of informational purposes, you may continue circlejerking your logical fallacies to not making it look like you indeed have no idea what you're talking about.

Here, enjoy a media source at the opposite side of BBC and CNN: http://rt.com/ they also have cool video footage!!

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Ps: Didn't feel like putting that in formatted quotes after using em so much all over the post 

[Borus]

That's very fancy. Nice try with the Nietzsche quote and all, but that doesn't excuse your argument of being any more valuable than before. You keep nagging and repeating on and on and on about things that already were explained with obvious facts, at which point you just switch to something else I stated in order to personally try making me look like the bad guy. Seeing that you are unable to read my previous posts, let me be kind enough to sum them up for you:

>Russia didn't invade anything, no one is taking any homes, no one is shoving any guns in anyone's mouth as troops are stationed in legal bases in Crimea by international law
>You refuse to look at Crimea's history and demographical aspects
>I don't only look at RT as I only provided that link as the counterpart of your BBC link as I already stated my sources which, that you failed to bring me, are not all internet and news websites. My POV is Crimea, not Russia nor NATO.

You are also manipulating my sentences in forms (ref: the nazism) which yet again shows how clueless you are and insist in continuing the argument to put me in the black light to seem to know what you are doing. Try following the suggestions I gave you before to keep this healthy.

"There is more than the internet, young padawan."
-Myself

http://i58.tinypic.com/2a6rris.jpg

[Exterminator]

You keep nagging and repeating on and on and on about things that already were explained with obvious facts, at which point you just switch to something else I stated in order to personally try making me look like the bad guy. Seeing that you are unable to read my previous posts, let me be kind enough to sum them up for you:

You keep making references of how i keep repeating and nagging and what not, but fail to provide any examples whatsoever. Can you please mention where i constantly repeated something? (Other than where you claim that i don't understand something yet refuse to explain it, where you constantly claim that i am repeating stuff failing to provide any examples and also any repetitions that had to be repeated as a reply to you repeating the claim/question)
Also, yep, i switched to something else.
You posted something, i replied entirely based on what you posted and countered it.
You claimed that i didn't answer your questions, i quoted all your questions and my replies to it.
You claimed i am trying to attack you in my post. I posted all my references of you in which not a single attack against you has been made, whereas your previous post was filled with attacks against me. It is not something else you stated. It is exactly what you stated.

Then suddenly you post this, which is not at all derived from my earlier post but you didn't forget to steal contents from it and apply it into another context. Yep, i'm the one trying to switch to something else.

You are also manipulating my sentences in forms (ref: the nazism) which yet again shows how clueless you are and insist in continuing the argument to put me in the black light to seem to know what you are doing. Try following the suggestions I gave you before to keep this healthy.

Again, you keep claiming that i don't understand what you are saying but fail to actually provide your explanation. Please kindly go ahead and explain to me what you meant by the nazism context instead of blatantly attacking me with generalities and accusing me of things i never did.
Not to mention the fact that your very use of the nazism context is disgusting, and shows to what lengths you are willing to go to try to fallaciously survive a debate.
You should not forget that Russia was born out of the Russian revolution, so was India, so was the U.S and many other countries. Regrettably Nazi Germany was one of them, and you manipulate the work of the Nazi Empire which slaughtered millions to fit into the context of Justifying Russian Intervention in Ukraine. Russia was born out of a revolution as well, don't see it needing any intervention.

>Russia didn't invade anything, no one is taking any homes, no one is shoving any guns in anyone's mouth as troops are stationed in legal bases in Crimea by international law
>You refuse to look at Crimea's history and demographical aspects
>I don't only look at RT as I only provided that link as the counterpart of your BBC link as I already stated my sources which, that you failed to bring me, are not all internet and news websites. My POV is Crimea, not Russia nor NATO.

>First of all, you took the shoving guns in people's faces out of it's original context. Russia surrounding Ukrainian bases and demanding them to hand over all their Ships and Planes may be legal on paper (I highly doubt it, but as Cofi is a international lawyer, meh..) but you claim that there is absolutely no unrest in crimea against it. But of course you stripped the statement and put it in the context of invasion to frame me.
>So essentially, just because crimea used to be a part of Russia, Russia has the right to annex crimea? (Which i highly doubt is legal. Taking over crimea is one thing, annexing it into it's own territory is illegal).
>And yet your original post was

>BBC
oh god lol

PS: The Nietzsche quote was there because it was a useful bit of advice, not to make it look pretty. Your quote is just another insult.