BBC Says Russia has invaded the Ukraine (10th time)

a reply to: VirusGuard


First the BBC was not the first to report it. Next reporters have taken pictures of rhe tanks near the airport. Yet we have people denying they are there. So what proof do you have the report is wrong in any way. Do you have anything other than your opinions? Have you been there at least reports have shown picrures of the tanks prepping can you at least prove they arent Russian.

Oh and you might want to read this report you know from the group the UN sent into Ukraine and reports back to the UN.

t 13:55hrs, on the eastern outskirts of Makeevka (25km north-east of Donetsk), within territory under control of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”), the SMM observed a convoy of more than 40 trucks and tankers moving west on highway H-21.

Of these 19 were large trucks – Kamaz type, covered, and without markings or number plates – each towing a 122mm howitzer and containing personnel in dark green uniforms without insignia. Fifteen were Kraz troop carriers. The SMM was on the move and could therefore not ascertain the contents of these. The remaining six were small fuel tankers, fitted with cranes. The SMM observed an unmarked BTR armoured personnel carrier leading the convoy, with a tarpaulin over the gun.

At 15:20hrs, at the intersection of Leninskyi Street and Kuprin Street (7km south-west of Donetsk city centre) the SMM observed a convoy of nine tanks – four T72 and five T64 – moving west, also unmarked.

www.osce.org...

originally posted by: VirusGuard
The BBC has report a so called Russian invasion about ten times now so the title is right and for the 3rd time I will say again that I am happy to go off topic with you to correct you on your mistakes.

I am going to call you out on this. Pages on the BBC remain, so it is possible to find what they previously reported. I have done a search on your claim and the only page that I can find around "Russian invasion" is the below, and it is a digest of Russian media reports of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. So there you have it... It's the Russian media who are reporting an invasion!

www.bbc.co.uk...

I think you have come into this discussion with a particular view of the BBC and have started to make things up, in the hope that people will not question what you say, but take what you say as fact.

You are making it all up as you go along, aren't you? Please, show where the BBC has reported a Russian invasion of Ukraine as fact.

Regards

originally posted by: paraphi
I am going to call you out on this.

Good and people here on ATS should do this a lot more often so here you go

BBC: Tanks 'cross border' from Russia

A column of 32 tanks and 30 trucks has crossed into eastern Ukraine from Russia, the Ukrainian government says.

The BBC has a habit of pulling pages on the internet and hides some right old garbage in the back pages but my information did not come from web pages but it was from a report on Russia Today that showed a clip from the BBC saying Russia had invaded so no it was not just hidden deep within web pages.

I confess that I tried for an hour yesterday to find the clip from RT showing the BBC's banning on about this invasion but to no avail. In the green bottom caption to the right it said "Complements of the BBC" but the white and green title bar was over the section of screen where the BBC would have its usual red title at the bottom.

Now I could be wrong but the BBC has been taking some stick over this so its friends "French TV" ran a article last night going on about this so called invasion and the did show pictures ! Yes about six green lorry's without number plates driving down a road somewhere in the world because they didn't give any details about where or when.

So it's a game of Chinese whispers to me where 6 lorries turn in to a battalion of tanks and trucks and so what if the pictures were from the east of Ukraine and the time was right because the rebels took all the military hardware from bases in the area when the conflict stared so nothing is unusual about seeing 6 trucks driving down the road.

5 men holding guns does not constitute a war (unless you are the BBC) and not only has the media over speculated but they are now in damage control mode on this one.

a reply to: dragonridr

"First the BBC was not the first to report it."

Yes they often get the likes of Aljizeera to run some cock and ball story that then gives the BBC/CNN an excuse to repeat any old rubbish. This is how the media in the west works and if one news outlets runs a insignificant story about a lost dog being returned home then you can bet its also on the other stations too.

Ebola news they were all running 24/7 seems to have become irreverent to everyone all at the same time.

"Next reporters have taken pictures of rhe tanks near the airport."

They have been slogging it out at the airport for months and both sides have Russian made tanks but this has nothing to do with this so called invasion.

"Yet we have people denying they are there."

That's not me but I must admit I have not seen any

"picrures of the tanks prepping can you at least prove they arent Russian."

All the tanks so far in the area are Russian made

"So what proof do you have the report is wrong in any way."

The BBC has no evidence to back up these wild clams it keeps making about an invasion else we would have seen them by now and they would had done better to have said that Russia was supplying tanks to the rebels instead because they might had got away with that lie.

if/when Russia invaded then the ground for miles around will shake, roads will be blocked with all the hardware heading in one direction and skys will be filed with air support and troops will be running across fields like ants ! That an invasion

At 15:20hrs, at the intersection of Leninskyi Street and Kuprin Street (7km south-west of Donetsk city centre) the SMM observed a convoy of nine tanks – four T72 and five T64 – moving west, also unmarked.

Well Europe has something well in excess of 5,000 US fighter jets on its ground and this does not mean that the USA has invaded Europe does it ?

As you know when trouble started the military in the east stayed in its barracks or was escorted home without the hardware so the rebels have a lot more than nine or ten tanks to fight the Nazi's with and amongst the rebels numbers you can also count a lot of ex servicemen that were once part of the Ukraine army.

Again this does not prove a Russia invasion or anything else apart from the fact that the rebels do have military equipment that's just the same as being used by the Kiev army and yes it's will all be Russian made on both sides.

if you are looking for a big movement of hardware then may I suggest you concentrate more on Kiev moving forces into the east after a peace deal was reached or find out who shelled and killed two kids in a rebel controlled school because I am sure the BBC will soon be making more mistakes and saying that the rebels are bombing their own kids soon.

a reply to: ParasuvO

I am curious as to why the BBC would bother reporting something that is unverified, and phrase it in the usual light so that it resonates in the brain for most as BLOODY FACT.

What the BBC reported was a 100% verified fact. The Ukrainian government did indeed claim that Russian troops were entering Ukraine. The BBC also reported that this claim was unverified. The story is a BLOODY FACT.

Ukraine has been a melting pot of murkiness and gypsy like behavior for along time, why is it so important that you believe that big bad Russia is making it worse LOL.

Do you get bonus points for gratuitous anti-Ukrainian slander? LOL

a reply to: VirusGuard
The BBC is a news organisation. They report news, including news from elsewhere and critically, the source of the news. The fact that Kiev is saying Russia is invading is news, but, as you pointed out, the BBC added the caveat "according to". In other words, the BBC is allowing their readership to appreciate the report has a particular side to it.

Anyway, you have posted a BBC article that states "according to Kiev" there is a Russian invasion. I have balanced this by providing another BBC article that states "according to Russian media" there is a Russian invasion. Both are helpful in seeing what is going on.

You may not like the BBC, but have still failed to come up with evidence, as you have previously asserted, that the BBC has reported as fact that Ukraine is being invaded.

Your position is the height of silliness, as it is made up. Prove to me that the BBC has reported as fact that Ukraine has / is being invaded.

Regards

a reply to: VirusGuard

The BBC has no evidence to back up these wild clams it keeps making about an invasion else we would have seen them by now and they would had done better to have said that Russia was supplying tanks to the rebels instead because they might had got away with that lie.

The BBC can verify every claim it has made, because it is reporting accurately what the Kyiv government has said. The Kyiv government may be inventing things, but you choose to blame the messenger. Why? Is it because you want to sow mistrust of one of the few news organizations that takes journalistic ethics seriously?

Incidentally, most of the domestic criticism of the BBC comes from the Right. Conservatives accuse the BBC of having a "homosexual agenda," of legitimizing "Islamo-fascism," and now, not being pro-actively Anti-Chinese and Anti-Russian.

if/when Russia invaded then the ground for miles around will shake, roads will be blocked with all the hardware heading in one direction and skys will be filed with air support and troops will be running across fields like ants ! That an invasion

That's not what happened when Russia invaded Crimea, is it? Putin was afraid that an overt military action would provoke a quick reprisal from NATO, so he sent his troops in in unmarked vehicles and uniforms without insignia. He is using the same cowardly tactic in Donbass.

Well Europe has something well in excess of 5,000 US fighter jets on its ground and this does not mean that the USA has invaded Europe does it ?

Actually, the United States did invade Europe in 1944 to destroy the Nazis and Fascists. They succeeded, and have stayed behind at the request of the majority of Europeans to protect them first from the Communists and now from the Fascists, to the East.

a reply to: DJW001

What the BBC reported was a 100% verified fact. The Ukrainian government did indeed claim that Russian troops were entering Ukraine. The BBC also reported that this claim was unverified. The story is a BLOODY FACT.

So in your world the BBC can report that Obama was caught having un protected sex with a boy prostitute and so long as the BBC says its "unverified" then its a "BLOODY FACT" and has nothing to do with propaganda even if they have ran similar stories ten times before.

Yeah OK then mate.

Actually, the United States did invade Europe in 1944 to destroy the Nazis and Fascists. They succeeded

Well number one it was Russia that defeated Germany and they took more ground back and lost ten times more people in the process than the allied forces and the USA was Johnny come late to the party who sold Europe a lot of old crap hardware and called it lend lease so in other words we will send you the bill later.

Bush was caught trading with the enemy but that criminal family went on to field two presidents and one did a 9/11 to his own people and after the war the USA used operation paperclip to help the Nazi's escape jail for mass murder and to kick off the US space program.

My granddad said that the trouble with Americans were that they were over paid and over here and I say that its high time our guess cleared off back home and stopped coursing trouble over here in Europe.

The USA even had plans to attack the British in Canada to take control as soon as WWII ended so don't lets think of ourselves as friends and more of a "US Interest" when it comes to the USA and fighting in Europe.

Sorry I don't quite see it your way.

a reply to: DJW001

Here's the funniest part of this whole thread...

Putin has admitted to sending troops to Crimea which was and is still part of Ukraine, so in all actuality Putin has already admitted to the invasion.

Now as for the OP when you send armed troops into a sovereign nation with the intent on annexing that territory it is called an INVASION.

So in reality the BBC article is correct which was even admitted to by Putin, but hey what do the facts matter... right?

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: DJW001

I am curious as to why the BBC would bother reporting something that is unverified, and phrase it in the usual light so that it resonates in the brain for most as BLOODY FACT.

Ukraine has been a melting pot of murkiness and gypsy like behavior for along time, why is it so important that you believe that big bad Russia is making it worse LOL.

As opposed to Russian media reporting on mass graves that are non existent as fact?

a reply to: VirusGuard

So in your world the BBC can report that Obama was caught having un protected sex with a boy prostitute and so long as the BBC says its "unverified" then its a "BLOODY FACT" and has nothing to do with propaganda even if they have ran similar stories ten times before.

Here let's get something straight...Putin admitted to sending troops to Crimea which was part of, and is still part of Ukraine so where do you not see they invaded Ukraine?

It doesn't matter if it's 100 troops or 10000 troops when armed forces of one country enter another country, especially a sovereign one and annex part of that sovereign country it is an invasion...a simple fact you and the other Putinista's don't or are unable to understand.

a reply to: VirusGuard

So in your world the BBC can report that Obama was caught having un protected sex with a boy prostitute and so long as the BBC says its "unverified" then its a "BLOODY FACT" and has nothing to do with propaganda even if they have ran similar stories ten times before.

Absolutely not! You seem to be completely ignorant of journalistic standards. A legitimate news agency cannot simply make something up, the way RT and Pravda do. (I'll be fair: so do non-Russian tabloids like The Examiner.) When a legitimate medium publishes a story, they must provide a source. If one of their reporters witnessed something, the reporter's name will be in the by-line. If they are reporting something someone else said, they will accurately report who said it. If they are reporting an event that one of their reporters did not see personally, they usually require at least three independent accounts to consider the event "verified."

In other words, no legitimate news agency would report that "Obama was caught having un-protected sex with a boy prostitute unless:

1. They had a reporter who actually witnessed it.
2. At least three reliable witnesses testified that they saw it or
3. The boy prostitute makes the allegation, in which case the report would read something along the the lines of: "A boy prostitute says President Obama had unprotected sex with him, but the claim remains unverified."

You will note that the article you link to in the OP falls into the third category, and you have deliberately altered what the BBC said to suit your agenda. It is this falsification that makes your account a lie in the service of propaganda.

You should be ashamed of yourself. If you support Putin's aggression, at least be honest. Your deceit makes your entire cause look bad. Learn from Victor, who is patriotic without being hypocritical.

I`m glad my family wasn`t on that plane :

German Foreign Ministry plays down intel report claiming Ukraine militia downed MH17

The German Foreign Ministry maintains the media interpretation of an October statement by the president of national intelligence agency alleging self-defense militia downed MH17 flight in Ukraine was incomplete and taken out of context.

The Russian embassy in Berlin received an official response to note #3693 from October 27 regarding Germany’s Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND intelligence agency) President Gerhard Schindler’s allegations that local militia in eastern Ukraine shot down the Malaysia Airlines flight in July.

“The media interpretation of the report of the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) president delivered to the Bundestag Committee overseeing intelligence activities on October 8 is incomplete and arbitrarily taken out of context,” the note says.

Source

Tony Abbott again softens tone against Vladimir Putin over downing of MH17

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he will seek an "assurance" from Vladimir Putin that his country will co-operate with investigations into the downing of MH17, in a further softening of his tone towards the Russian President.

Speaking to reporters at the APEC summit in Beijng on Monday, Mr Abbott dramatically toned down his rhetoric and noted Russia's pledge to do what it could to bring the perpetrators to justice.

"Good on Russia for saying that and I'll just be looking for an assurance from the President that what they said then – they meant and what they said then is still what they say now," he said.

This contrasts with an assertion in October that he would "shirtfront" Mr Putin over the deaths of 38 Australian citizens and residents who died in the atrocity. And the Prime Minister vowed at the weekend to have "robust" discussions with Mr Putin about MH17 at APEC this week

Source

From my limited understanding of the thread thus far:

Pro-Russian poster links a BBC article claiming Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Poster says (basically) "pics or it didn't happen"

Pics, videos, reports from OSCE, etc are provided.
"Still didn't happen."

Am I correct?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Here's the funniest part of this whole thread...

Putin has admitted to sending troops to Crimea which was and is still part of Ukraine, so in all actuality Putin has already admitted to the invasion.

Good try with the words smith but Putin did have a few people in the Crimea just in case fighting broke out but it didn't and they all just about voted to split from the Ukraine so no the Crimea is not part of the Ukraine anymore and if having a few people on the ground is an invasion then the USA must be invading about 50 countries as we speak and that includes the Ukraine.

Now as for the OP when you send armed troops into a sovereign nation with the intent on annexing that territory it is called an INVASION.

Tell that to 007 and his sexy looking sidekick who also happened to be carrying a gun so they must had been invading Russia by your twist of logic but if you need more help on just what a military invasion is then may I suggest to look at the D-Day landings

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
From my limited understanding of the thread thus far:

Pro-Russian poster links a BBC article claiming Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Poster says (basically) "pics or it didn't happen"

Pics, videos, reports from OSCE, etc are provided.
"Still didn't happen."

Am I correct?

Correct

This is the game they liked to play. Since they cant refute facts they try to have the same failed argument over and over and over again.

a reply to: DJW001

Absolutely not! You seem to be completely ignorant of journalistic standards.

Yes but you told me that because they put "unconfirmed" they could say anything they wanted so are you now saying that the BBC can be allowed to make little mistakes on something that could potentially lead to nuclear war but its not OK if its about the Clintons or Obamas sex lives.

Whist journalists might have "journalistic standards" the BBC does not and most of the time they are merely presenting public relations consultants paid points of view with the news casters speculation as they go along.

Presstitutes by any other name

a reply to: VirusGuard

If a nation send troops into any territory of a sovereign nation with the intent of taking all or part of that sovereign nation's soil, that's an invasion.

What does Merriam-Webster say about the word "Invade"?

Let's see.

in·vade verb \in-ˈvād\
: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force

A military force entered Crimea, and was taken into Russian control.
Are you going says dictionaries are liars next?

a reply to: VirusGuard

Yes but you told me that because they put "unconfirmed" they could say anything they wanted

No I did not. Once again you are putting words in someone else's mouth. Please link to where I made that statement or admit that you are a liar.

a reply to: VirusGuard

Good try with the words smith but Putin did have a few people in the Crimea just in case fighting broke out but it didn't and they all just about voted to split from the Ukraine so no the Crimea is not part of the Ukraine anymore and if having a few people on the ground is an invasion then the USA must be invading about 50 countries as we speak and that includes the Ukraine.

Again you seem to not understand the difference between sending troops to Crimea and having troops deployed in Crimea...there is a difference and you should learn it.

Ah yes the Crimean vote that was not close to what Russia reported and even Putin's own government admitted to it. Also known as a farce of a vote.

And is the US in those countries with the sole purpose of annexing them for the US...NO but of course that was Russia's plan from the beginning and if you believe they were there to protect anyone your kidding yourself, they went into Crimea for one reason and one reason only...Annexing Crimea so he doesn't have to pay the lease on their base.

As they had the lease until 2042 so they were in no fear of losing it to Ukraine so they can't use that as an excuse...oh wait they have.