Syria and Ukraine, Catalan and Kurdistan: what do they have in common?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, November 16, 2024 22:06
VIEWED: 16012
PAGE 2 of 10

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

KPO

Tuesday, December 1, 2015 10:14 PM

Quote:
Quote:
I guess that few people are ready to do a point-to-point comparison.-SIGNY

Try rewriting the OP without the Kremlin talking points. After all, you said you wanted a fact based discussion.- KPO

Insults right away. - SIGNY

No. Just because it hurt your feelings doesn't make it an insult. Newsflash: if you're wrong and it gets pointed out, it's going to hurt your feelings. The trick is to stop parroting Kremlin media, and thus being wrong so often.

Quote:
Apparently, you can't even hold a decent discussion.

Not with you, it seems.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Wednesday, December 2, 2015 3:59 AM

Quote:
Are you going to apply the same objections to US elections that have evidently been rigged?

So rather than try to deny that Yanukovich and Assad held fraudulent elections, all you can do is try this lame false equivalence? At-a-girl.

Quote:
In fact the US doesn't allow international observers to view its elections at all.

Err, wrong.

US Election monitoring by the OSCE going back to 2002 - http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/usa

Quote:
But when studied, those elections have been deemed irregular by statisticians, particularly the first dumbya one.

US elections have been consistently praised by election monitors, while some recommendations for tightening in some areas have been made. Disputed elections in the US are rare, and almost always come about when the votes are very close, as in Florida 2000.

Compare that with Yanukovich's track record of holding elections - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20120888

The OSCE said the elections "were marked by the abuse of state resources, lack of transparency of campaign and party financing and the lack of balanced media coverage", and were a backwards step for democracy after the 2010 election held by the previous pro-Western government that was recognised as free and fair.

What we're doing is comparing an imperfect democratic system (the USA) where in rare instances the result of an election can be called into question, with undemocratic leaders who use instruments of government to make the whole election unfair and fraudulent. One is imperfect democracy; the other is show democracy, carried out by undemocratic leaders. I wouldn't expect Putin fangirls and regular consumers of Russian propaganda to recognise the distinction, nonetheless it exists, and is obvious to the rest of us.

Quote:
Both used violence to suppress peaceful popular protests, which led to the protests becoming violent

And that's different from the US - how?

More feeble Whatabout-ism? Is this all you have kiki? How are the situations different? In scale and severity, of course. The Syrian regime used indiscriminate sniper fire, abductions, rape and torture against the peaceful uprising en masse, and from the beginning. And you're saying the US government is as bad because, what, Ferguson? Go on, amuse us all and insist that the two are morally equivalent. You know you're itching to.

It's not personal. It's just war.

1KIKI

Wednesday, December 2, 2015 10:22 AM

report from 2012

The 6 November general elections took place in a competitive environment and were administered in a professional manner. However, decisions on technical aspects of the electoral process were often unduly politicized.
The campaigns were vibrant and were covered extensively in the media, allowing
voters to make informed choices. While generally characterized by broad public confidence, further steps should be taken to improve the electoral process, in areas such as voting rights, the accuracy of voter lists, campaign finance transparency, recount procedures, and access of international election observers.

press release from 2012
Threat of criminal prosecution of observers at odds with established co-operation on United States elections, ODIHR Director says

from 2010

Attempts to introduce new voter identification and proof of citizenship requirements are heavily politicized, split on the issue of enfranch
isement versus integrity of the vote. A broad variety of procedures exist within and between states which has, at times, resulted in an unequal treatment of voters.
These elections were the first held after the US Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts to advocate for the election or defeat of candidates as a right to free speech. It is disputable to what extent this decision contributed to the record 4 billion USD spent on campaigning during these elections. However, the transparency of campaign financing was noticeably undermined by the increased contribution of certain types of organizations that are not required by law to disclose their donors.

I've got someone needing attention. The OSCE didn't give the first two elections I looked at a ringing endorsement.

Still want to claim the US meets international standards?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

KPO

Wednesday, December 2, 2015 6:53 PM

Quote:
The OSCE didn't give the first two elections I looked at a ringing endorsement.

I never said they did. Let's have a look at what I said:

"US elections have been consistently praised by election monitors, while some recommendations for tightening in some areas have been made."

Which is completely true. You have copied and pasted text out of the OSCE reports, all to back up what I've already said. So thanks for that. Let me also point out that the issues with US elections that you have highlighted such as voter registration and voter ID and campaign financing are not on the OSCE's list of 'priority' recommendations but on their list of 'other' recommendations (pp. 24-26). So flaws? Yes. Should be addressed? Yep. Make US democracy as bad as the regimes of tyrannical despots who run show elections, and actively rig them? No. Sorry kiki.

Any other false equivalences you would like to make kiki? Have you shied away from the 'Ferguson was as bad as Syria' line? Come on, you know you want to make it.

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 2, 2015 8:59 PM

Quote:
I guess that few people are ready to do a point-to-point comparison.-SIGNY

Try rewriting the OP without the Kremlin talking points. After all, you said you wanted a fact based discussion.- KPO

Insults right away. - SIGNY

No. Just because it hurt your feelings doesn't make it an insult. Newsflash: if you're wrong and it gets pointed out, it's going to hurt your feelings. The trick is to stop parroting Kremlin media, and thus being wrong so often.-KPO

I guess, first of all... WHAT "Kremlin talking points"? Please point out - quote me- where I used "Kremlin talking points" in my posts. You should back up your dismissal of my facts with YOUR facts. Otherwise, it's just an insult.

Quote:
Apparently, you can't even hold a decent discussion.- SIGNY

Not with you, it seems.-KPO

Hey, I wasn't the one starting out with insults right away. I'm sorry if you feel pissed because I called you an ISIL apologist, but that's in another thread. Try to keep this one clean. If at all possible.

----

So BTW you failed to respond to any of my other requests for further information:

Quote:
Yes, there are quite a few similarities between Yanukovich and Assad:
- Neither has ever held a fair election, and both have held elections criticised by the outside world-

Were ANY of those elections certified as "free and fair" by international monitors?- SIGNY

Pretend that I don't know much about these elections, because I don't. Please give me a history, with links and specifics, of the various elections in Ukraine and Syria, whether they were observed by any international observers and who those observers were, whether they were certified as "free and fair" and who they were certified by. One thing I would be particularly interested in is if the USA was supportive of SOME elections in Ukraine (and Syria) but not supportive of OTHER elections in Ukraine (and Syria) held under much the same conditions. In other words, is the USA support of national elections more dependent on the process, or on the specific candidates? Details. I can't seem to understand anything unless I have the specifics.

Quote:
-Both used violence to suppress peaceful popular protests, which led to the protests becoming violent- KPO

Evidence, please.-SIGNY

Same request. There was plenty of Ukrainian video evidence of (civilian, Nazi) provocateurs embedded in a largely peaceful protest, burning policemen with Molotov cocktails. The sniper fire killings were widely blamed on the Berkut (police), but the bullet trajectories traced back to a Nazi-occupied hotel. It's a widely-used extremist tactic to incite violence and escalate within a peaceful crowd, and snipers being used to create a false flag isn't unheard of ("The Revolution Will not be Televised" details how that was done in Venezuela.) So if this comes down to "They started it" you better show how the government started the violence and kept it going, in detail.

Then, do the same for Syria. I know less about Syria than Ukraine. Please bring detailed information to the board.

Quote:
Both are/were heavily supported by Russia- KPO

So? There are a lot of nations supported by the USA- does that make them illegitimate?- SIGNY

This is a non-point, as far as I can tell, and one that you should probably back away from. But if you want to claim that this makes some kind of difference, have at it.

I would add another request: When the Yanukovich government offered a political solution: early elections, etc ... why wasn't that good enough?

Quote:
When you can bring something other than insults, unsupported opinion, and 100% prejudice to the thread, please come back.-SIGNY

I expect this to be a vigorous discussion. I know who you support and where your biases lie, and therefore if anyone is motivated and able to bring relevant information to the table, it is you (and G and THUGR). But I

KPO

Thursday, December 3, 2015 4:01 AM

Quote:
I guess, first of all... WHAT "Kremlin talking points"?

Ok. Inaccuracies/Kremlin propaganda in your first post:

Quote:
In Ukraine, we have a pro-western government which overthrew a previously elected government...

Incorrect. The current Ukrainian government was elected in two elections (presidential and parliamentary) that were recognised as free and fair.

Quote:
peaceful protests followed by a non-democratic (ie non-election) coup.

Bzz! A 'non-democratic' coup? As opposed to a democratic one...? In any case any use of the word 'coup' in reference to the Maidan revolution is a brainless parroting of Russian propaganda talking points.

Quote:
Part of Ukraine has been absorbed into Russia after a local referendum.

You forgot the bit about the illegal Russian military operation to take over the peninsula.

Quote:
In Syria, we have an elected anti-western government

Err, more accurately we have a dictatorial dynastic regime that has been in charge for over 40 years.

Quote:
So BTW you failed to respond to any of my other requests for further information:

You said it wasn't worthwhile having a discussion, and I agreed with you. That's kind of the point I've been making about this thread from the start: you framed the whole discussion according to the 'facts' you've imbibed from Russian propaganda, and then asked for a 'reasonable discussion'.

Here's the thing Sig. Even if you deny, as you surely do, that your facts are wrong, how can you expect to have a reasoned discussion based on facts with someone who holds to completely different facts from you? This is why my interactions with you are limited to swooping in on discussions, pointing out where you are clearly and demonstrably wrong, and then swooping off again.

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 3, 2015 7:43 AM

Quote:
I guess, first of all... WHAT "Kremlin talking points"?- KPO

Ok. Inaccuracies/Kremlin propaganda in your first post:

Quote:
In Ukraine, we have a pro-western government which overthrew a previously elected government...

Incorrect. The current Ukrainian government was elected in two elections (presidential and parliamentary) that were recognised as free and fair.

Okay, yeah, I kind of ellipsed that. That was the SHORT version of ... the current (elected) government grew out of an interim government which overthrew the previously elected government. The current government was elected by only a portion of the Ukrainian population which was not under Kiev's control.

OK?

Quote:
peaceful protests followed by a non-democratic (ie non-election) coup.- SIGNY

Bzz! A 'non-democratic' coup? As opposed to a democratic one...? In any case any use of the word 'coup' in reference to the Maidan revolution is a brainless parroting of Russian propaganda talking points.

In what way was the replacement of the Yanukovich government during a period of violent strife NOT a coup. Calling me "brainless" does not make me so, unless you can demonstrate that what occurred was not a coup. After all, what is the difference between a "revolution" (your term) and a coup, except whether or not you approve of the results?

Quote:
Part of Ukraine has been absorbed into Russia after a local referendum.

You forgot the bit about the illegal Russian military operation to take over the peninsula.

Yeah, with a referendum which garnered a 90%+ positive vote. Whether or not the vote represented the will of the people should be open for discussion. Unless you think the will of the people isn't an important factor?

Quote:
In Syria, we have an elected anti-western government -SIGNY

Err, more accurately we have a dictatorial dynastic regime that has been in charge for over 40 years.- KPO

Well, I don't know much about Syrian elections, but I know they had them. So I guess you don't get to call it a "dictatorial regime" until you demonstrate that it doesn't/ didn't reflect the will of the people. Or maybe the will of the people shouldn't be an important consideration? Especially if the government is a secular option compared to theocratic terrorism? Anyway, you'll have to tell me what YOU think a "dictatorial regime" consists of, and how you know that a government is one.

Quote:
So BTW you failed to respond to any of my other requests for further information: - SIGNY

You said it wasn't worthwhile having a discussion, and I agreed with you. That's kind of the point I've been making about this thread from the start: you framed the whole discussion according to the 'facts' you've imbibed from Russian propaganda, and then asked for a 'reasonable discussion'.

And I'm still asking for a reasonable discussion, which I hope will be rigorous.

Quote:
Here's the thing Sig. Even if you deny, as you surely do, that your facts are wrong, how can you expect to have a reasoned discussion based on facts with someone who holds to completely different facts from you? This is why my interactions with you are limited to swooping in on discussions, pointing out where you are clearly and demonstrably wrong, and then swooping off again.

The universe isn't confused, only people are.

Truth exists, only lies have to be invented.

There is only one set of facts.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

KPO

Friday, December 4, 2015 5:48 AM

Quote:
Whether or not the vote represented the will of the people should be open for discussion. Unless you think the will of the people isn't an important factor?

You're fine for countries to take land off other countries by force and then hold referenda? Or only Russia?

Quote:
In what way was the replacement of the Yanukovich government during a period of violent strife NOT a coup.

In what way IS it a coup? As far as I can tell your equation is: CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT + SOME VIOLENCE = COUP. You don't think revolutions can be violent? Was the French Revolution of 1789 a 'coup'? You're so eager to join the dots and parrot the emotionally charged rhetoric you get from Russian propaganda you throw logic out of the window.

Quote:
Well, I don't know much about Syrian elections, but I know they had them. So I guess you don't get to call it a "dictatorial regime"

You don't think dictatorial regimes hold elections? Ah Sig. So cynical when it suits you, and likewise so naive when it suits you. Syria, effectively a one party state that has had power for over 40 years, has widespread documented human rights abuses, tightly state-controlled media, comes bottom of all democracy rankings, etc. etc. You may not know much about the Syrian 'elections', but you should know enough about the country to approach them from a position of scepticism.

Quote:
And I'm still asking for a reasonable discussion,

And I'm still doubting I can have one with you, sorry.

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Friday, December 4, 2015 10:20 PM

Quote:
And I'm still asking for a reasonable discussion- SIGNY
And I'm still doubting I can have one with you, sorry.-KPO

Let me give you a few examples of what I was hoping for, which would have been educational for me, and probably for you and for everyone else as well.

Quote:
Whether or not the [Crimean] vote [to join Russia] represented the will of the people should be open for discussion. Unless you think the will of the people isn't an important factor?- SIGNY

You're fine for countries to take land off other countries by force and then hold referenda? Or only Russia?- KPO

Well, I said it should be OPEN FOR DISCUSSION, I didn't say I was "fine" with it. Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

But, to demonstrate the various points that SHOULD be discussed:

There are a lot of other examples of secessions or attempted secessions within Europe and around the world... East Timorese, Venetians, Tamils, Scots, Catalans, Kurds, etc. The list of secessionist movements is truly astounding. Crimea and the attempted secession of the Donbass isn't unique at all.

Isn't the secession of Crimea (which you don't recognize) similar to the secession of Kosovo? (which you DO recognize)? Wasn't the secession of Kosovo initiated by foreign violence (NATO bombing and destruction of Yugoslavia), protested by the relevant authority (Serbs), protected by foreign troops (NATO and UN) and based on a foreign sponsor's lie (ethnic cleansing by Serbians, as thumped by the USA)?

Quote:
The 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence was adopted on 17 February 2008 by representatives of the Kosovo people. The participants unanimously declared Kosovo to be independent from Serbia, while all 11 representatives of the Serb minority boycotted the proceedings. It was the second declaration of independence by Kosovo's Albanian-majority political institutions; the first was proclaimed on 7 September 1990.

The legality of the declaration has been disputed. Serbia sought international validation and support for its stance that the declaration was illegal, and in October 2008 requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. The Court determined that the declaration did not violate international law., except that main sponsor is different?

The USA, in supporting Kosovo's bid for secssion, cited the "special circumstances" of "ethnic cleansing" by Serbs .... allegations which proved to be as FALSE as the WMD allegations. Therefore the sui generis category of Kosovo's independence is based on vapor.

So what differences are there between Crimean and Kosovar secession, except that the sponsor of one secession was accepted by the west and the sponsor of another is NOT accepted by the west?

In terms of internal (Crimean) support for secession, and are you saying, KPO that Russia could REALLY have taken Crimea "by force" with very little evidence of violence (except around one Ukrainian military base, as I recall) if it was truly against the will of the people? That Russian forces COULD have forcefully maneuvered a vote that was 90%+ in favor of joining Russia, if it didn't have the support of MOST of the people? Here are some examples of Crimeans interacting with these "polite green men" or "little green men"

http://anthropoliteia.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/posing-with-children
.jpeg?w=696

By contrast, this is what happened in Odessa, thanks to the far-right provocateurs

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ima

SIGNYM

Saturday, December 5, 2015 10:41 PM

Apparently not.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE