Putin changes course, admits Russian troops were in Crimea before vote

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: zilebeliveunknown
LOL, good luck with listening trained liars.
And thank you, I have my own eyes and ears.

eta: and brain.

What are you trying to say here exactly?




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: VirusGuard
reply to post by Soshh
 

Russia has every right to be in the Crimea

I stopped reading here. Here is where I am coming from:

If you have two opposing parties in a conflict, they might naturally disagree on who has 'the right' to do what, especially in public where they have to justify their actions/motives and win over the uninitiated.

But questions of right and wrong are for the moralists and propagandists to quibble over. It's all nonsense to me, but it's entirely up to you if you want to be placed in either of those categories.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I think Putin did this in an attempt to discredit RT. They were the ones that exposed his cooperation with Western interests, assisting them in their cover-up of 9/11. They did a whole article on it that I have posted in my other thread about the Ukrainian army siding with the Eartern Ukrainian people protesting against the coup-backed Kiev government. They're all in it together. In fact, I think Putin's planning on handing Snowden over to NATO once the # does hit the fan.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soshh
But questions of right and wrong are for the moralists and propagandists to quibble over. It's all nonsense to me, but it's entirely up to you if you want to be placed in either of those categories.


That is a very good point.

That's why we have laws, which must apply regardless of however moral the motives might be, because inner motives cannot be proven in legally relevant terms (with very few exceptions).
It's even more important in context of international laws, because: through violation of international law we can alter the applicable international law (by habitual law).

Precedents and practice.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
You had to feel sorry for the Russian Defence Minister at the time. Along as Putin and Lavrov were claiming "Crimean Self Defence Forces" he had no option but to go along with the charade. Unfortunately he got himself into a bit of a pickle over the equipment and how the "Crimeans" got hold of it. If only ALL the Russian units had removed the licence plates!



Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on Wednesday denied that Russian forces are currently deployed in Ukraine's Crimea region and said that video footage showing Russian license plates on the military vehicles was "complete nonsense."

Shoigu responded to journalists' questions Wednesday by saying that he did not know how the unidentified forces came to possess the Lynx and Tiger armored cars that are used by the Russian military.


Link


Photos of Russian hardware in Crimea nothing but provocation – Russia's Defense Minister

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has dismissed as nothing but a provocation the alleged photos and videos in mass media of Russian military hardware in Crimea. "Of course, it’s a provocation," Shoigu told reporters on Wednesday. "Pure rubbish," he said, commenting on the allegations.

Shoigu also noted that there was no information that people blocking Ukrainian military facilities in Crimea had received modern weaponry, including Tigr and Rys personnel armored carriers. "I do not have any idea about this," the minister said.


Link
edit on 19/4/2014 by tommyjo because: spelling



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Soshh

me says
"Russia has every right to be in the Crimea"

you says
"I stopped reading here"

Well by the same token you need to question the right of the USA to be in Cuba or Europe.

It's written into the law so I would keep on reading if I was you the next time



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Davian

"They're all in it together. In fact, I think Putin's planning on handing Snowden over to NATO once the # does hit the fan."

if they are all in it together then this phony war is about increasing military spending and pushing up oil prices and this is what I am starting to think so there will be no S to hit the fan and just the odd few deaths on the streets of the Ukraine.

Was the Right to clash with the so called terrorists in the east then it would already be happening

Snowden is an hero but that phone-in sure was fixed and I thought Putin had more brains about him than to play along with such I ill conceived plan.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

If an Republican was in charge by now you and the rest would be drafted for war agaisnt Russia for NATO's land expansion into Eastern Europe.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
For those whom are agaisnt Russia you might as well believe that Assad is living on an Russian Ship and is in Moscow.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ColCurious
From my perspective, international law is important in that it provides a framework and a point from which the global system can continue to evolve. International law is written rather broadly, furthermore it can only be enforced by those with the power to impose it on others, and so it tends to be more of a means of legitimising acts that would have been made anyway than a set of rules that must be abided by absolutely, and by all.

If Crimea taught anyone anything it should be that true international law remains The Law of the Jungle. The real problem is that, as a wise man once said to me - "If your enemy doesn't abide by your moral code, then what use is it?"



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard
I did not say that Russia didn't have the right to be in Crimea. Please try to understand what I did say, because I lack the patience to elucidate it for you.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soshh
International law is written rather broadly, furthermore it can only be enforced by those with the power to impose it on others, and so it tends to be more of a means of legitimising acts that would have been made anyway than a set of rules that must be abided by absolutely, and by all.

Exactly right. That is and was indeed the practice.
If it is supposed to be abided at all (as several of our bureaucrats suggested) it has to be abided by all, else it is void and all is fair game.


originally posted by: Soshh
If Crimea taught anyone anything it should be that true international law remains The Law of the Jungle. The real problem is that, as a wise man once said to me - "If your enemy doesn't abide by your moral code, then what use is it?"

I agree again, except we already learned this (at least) back in 1998/1999, when NATO attacked the former sovereign Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (without UN-mandate).
I'm not saying those "humanitarian military engagements" were morally right or wrong, but strictly de jure, NATO violated international law, and not for the last time.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join