You sure do like talking about me.
To channel Eleanor Roosevelt, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
You discuss people you are having the discussion with. Not sure where that puts your mind on that scale, you may have broken the bottom off it.
Your points have been previously discussed and systematically refuted by pretty much the entire western world ad nauseam over the course of several threads.
What you shill is little more than basic Russian propaganda, and your sycophantic support and rationalization of this entire misadventure has made you little more than a laughing stock.
You're not a victim. You can stop the melodrama.
If, as you claim, the "entire western world" has already refuted my points, why do you feel need to resort to ad-hominems? Seems like you yourself are finding those refutations insufficient.
You seemed incapable of grasping how or why anyone could become exasperated by your warped, propagandized viewpoints, and might actually grow tired of essentially carrying on a reasoned attempt at a debate with Russia Today again and again.
I hoped to clarify that for you.
It was a stupid risk even without hindsight. Everyone knew the rebels had captured Buk air defense systems; most people know they have Russian former and probably current military technicians helping them run them. Flying over an active shooting war assuming the soldiers will be perfect is simply stupid, let alone doing the same with hundreds of civilians.The Crimea ban was less about safety than about jurisdiction, since both Ukraine and Russia claim that airspace and traffic control. Who do you listen to? It's far easier to just avoid it. It was never about "punishing" anyone and more about not wanted to get mired in the politics.
As for the Donetsk region, it was assumed that the plane was out of reach of ground-based missiles, except for those controlled by the professional military, and that the professional military will not target civilian aircraft. Their error was that assumption that the criminal gangs (or "separatists", if you don't want to call a spade a spade) that control that area didn't have these missiles. There was and still is some dispute over that downed transport--whether it was from a ground-based missile or from Russian aircraft.
But in this case it IS about people. Had someone put a bullet in Putin's brain a year ago there would be no civil war, period.You sure do like talking about me.
To channel Eleanor Roosevelt, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
You discuss people you are having the discussion with. Not sure where that puts your mind on that scale, you may have broken the bottom off it.
Absolutely nothing. It was a a not particularly well done bit of sarcasm.
But in this case it IS about people. Had someone put a bullet in Putin's brain a year ago there would be no civil war, period.
True.He likes discussing me, not Putin.
Had someone put a bullet in my brain a year ago, there would still be a civil war.
True.
For the record, although we largely disagree on this issue and indeed probably most issues, I'm glad no one put a bullet in you.
The differences between Ukrainian and Russian people are cosmetic. The distance between Kiev and Moscow is about same as Sacramento to San Diego. Even today, after all that happened, the most likely language you will hear on the streets of Kiev is Russian. So why Kremlin was so enraged about recent Ukrainian revolution? After all Ukraine has no natural gas or oil, there were no riches to divide, what was the fuss all about?
What happened is that first time in history, large group of ethnic Russians had overthrown a mafia clan in a popular uprising. Until then, Ukraine was a satellite state, and exactly because it had no natural oil and gas, much larger portion of the population had to develop creative class skills rather than going to work for oil company or police enforcement. Then suddenly this social group had enough heft and popular power to overthrow local mafia don.
You can imagine the amount of terror it produced in the gang occupying Kremlin right now. It was and still is an extensional threat to them, hence they pulled out all the stops to overthrow or destabilize a new government in Kiev, and at the same time whip out xenophobic mass-hysteria in a local population.
At this moment, Kremlin can not really stop. If Kiev government survives, it will fairly quickly unlock economic benefits of non-mafia, free economy. The large parasitic class living by bribes and extortion will be displaced: it will have the same effect as if base tax rate would suddenly drop by a double digit percentage. Next door, progressive Russians would quickly notice and spread information about growing prosperity and opportunity in a city next door. What was half million Euro-leaning progressives, would become a million, then few million: before long you can picture a Gaddafi-style demise for the Kremlin gang.
Of course civilian collateral damage is always a tragedy. Putin bears responsibility for his support of a side in a conflict that resulted in these tragic deaths. That is already well covered though. But as an air traveler, I am more concerned about whether the civilian aviation regulators and authorities on the ground are acting in the interest of passenger safety rather than politics. If you are not concerned that international air travel regulators don't issue any warnings and Ukrainian air traffic control sends planes into a location where a military plane was blown out of the sky at 21,000 feet 3 days earlier, that's fine, but it is concerning to me.
If, as you claim, the "entire western world" has already refuted my points, why do you feel need to resort to ad-hominems?
I'd say that is a fairly accurate summation, albeit in inflammatory language. Putin has no made bones about his desire to rebuild the Soviet Union and here is his most important satellite nation going rogue on him.That's comforting, thanks, appreciate it
Here is interesting article about Russia with a perspective on Putin's motivations:
http://skibinsky.com/no-russian/
uh...that answer isn't obvious to you?
2 days ago, I already saw Putin publicly blaming Ukraine for "going to war with separatists" (meaning--Russian citizens causing dissent inside Ukraine) for the downing of this plane.
Were you concerned that his message wasn't getting outside of the normal RT channels?
It is obvious to me that one resorts to ad-hominems when the substance is lacking, that was a rhetorical question
exactly! though I think you remain confused on whom is lacking substance in their arguments. I doubt this will change, however
The one going with the ad-hominems. No confusion on that point
It was a stupid risk even without hindsight. Everyone knew the rebels had captured Buk air defense systems; most people know they have Russian former and probably current military technicians helping them run them. Flying over an active shooting war assuming the soldiers will be perfect is simply stupid, let alone doing the same with hundreds of civilians.
But in this case it IS about people. Had someone put a bullet in Putin's brain a year ago there would be no civil war, period.
This is the result of Putin's leadership; the kind that was praised by some on these forums. You should be ashamed.
Rebels had announced last month that they had captured a Ukrainian Buk air defense system, which would have been an SA-11. Whether or not they could operate it - and what they used for radar direction - is unknown. In fact, this article http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/20/world/europe/ukraine-rebels-weapons/ says the current working theory is that this was a fresh system supplied by Russia, which I'm assuming would be furnished with a self-propelled radar vehicle and FDC as well as with trained technicians to operate it or at least to train the rebels, which would fit exactly with the Russian model in previous civil wars. However it's worth pointing out that the SA-11 can be operated in passive mode, aiming by eye and relying solely on the missile's radar to lock and track. With military aircraft that's highly ineffective, but with a high flying, lumbering civilian passenger jet, with no missile launch detection gear, no countermeasures, and pilots not trained to search out missile launches, it might be more practical.Everything I have read either points that the SA-11 used came from Russia, or are not willing to say where it came from. I have not seen anything yet saying it was captured by from the Ukraine.
lol +1Anyone else find it amusing that apparently Putin has more control over Ukrainian rebels than Obama has over US government agencies? :whiste: