a reply to: theantediluvian
Strictly speaking, the russian editorial is correct.
"terrorists of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic"
Is a political propaganda, and incorrect. Doesn't matter what they call themselves, they are "ukrainian soldiers", no matter which side of the
civil war they belong. Labeling them "terrorists", is a political adjective that is siding with "who" is "who". In this case, the people of
Donetsk do not have the right to self-determination. For some reason, because they are russian they are to be denied to have their own state.
That's the very definition of "political propaganda", and should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Therefore the Russian edit, is "more" correct,
although another term should be created.
Secondly, facts like "Kiev has these missiles" and "rebels don't", doesn't seem to score much. All in all, if the US yiells very loud nobody
hears anything else ... that's bullying, and not arguments. Just because the US sides with Kiev, and decided everybody else doesn't have the right
of self-determination, does not mean they are automatically right. They weren't right about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they weren't right
about Iraq at all ... and neither were they right about Afghanistan. And everywhere they are they cause more damage, than they fix. Like ISIS ...
ISIS was born, because of the US meddling in the middle east. Same applied to Khomeini.
The US, isn't even asking the question "Who let the plane deviate from it's course". Nor are they asking "why is a commercial aircraft allowed
to fly over a no fly zone, especially one in a warzone".
The US is simply stating whatever it feels, for the purpose of getting it's political values.
BUT ANYTHING THE US AND IT'S ALLIES HAVE DONE FOR PATH 50 YEARS, HAVE BEEN IN VAIN AND HAVE BROUGHT NOTHING BUT DEATH AND DESTRUCTION AROUND THE