It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
This academic analysis is by far the most detailed and thorough investigation of the Kiev Sniper Controversy, drawing on a mass of sources and materials, some of which were previously unpublished.

The study concludes that, though there is some evidence that some of the protesters killed during the Maidan disturbances may have been accidentally shot by police snipers, the great majority were killed by snipers controlled by the pro-West demonstration leaders in a false flag operation.

The study suggests this was a pre-planned provocation to discredit the Yanukovych government and that these same leaders both before and especially after they seized power have engaged in a systematic cover up of the facts to conceal their own guilt.



The new government that came to power largely as a result of the massacre falsified its investigation, while the Ukrainian media helped to misrepresent the mass killing of the protesters and the police. The evidence indicates that the far right played a key role in the violent overthrow of the government in Ukraine. This academic investigation also brings new important questions that need to be addressed.


The study:

The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine

In the 21st century, many cameras are circulating everywhere.

"Oppositionist" Sergei Pashinsky caught with sniper rifle but was saved by "protesters"


Government snipers were blamed with the killings. "Serious" problems with the "evidence" even was reported by Reuters:


The problem: Sadovnyk doesn’t have two hands. His right hand, his wife told Reuters, was blown off by a grenade in a training accident six years ago. As prosecutors introduced the image at a hearing in April, said Yuliya Sadovnyk, her husband removed a glove and displayed his stump to the courtroom.


Special Report: Flaws found in Ukraine's probe of Maidan massacre

...and it was just the first massacre...
edit on 11am20200000011 by maghun because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: maghun

Well put together post. It really makes you question the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government and their backers.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Here are your flaws. You linked a source and cherry picked a quote you like. Here is the rest.

One, he doesn't need to shoot.

Senior among them was Dmytro Sadovnyk, 38, a decorated commander, who was accused of ordering his men to fire on the crowds on the morning of Feb. 20.

Does it require 2 hands to issue an order?


investigators had identified 17 Berkut officers as alleged participants in the protester shootings, based on surveillance camera videos and mobile-phone location data. Of the 17, he said, 14 had fled to Russia or Crimea, including the Berkut’s top commander in Kiev. Sadovnyk and his two co-defendants were the only identified suspects who had remained behind.

So the suspects fled to Russia, who took them in because they were Western agents? Real plausible.


A former Berkut commander told Reuters that Berkut officers destroyed documentary evidence that potentially could identify fellow officers. They did so, he said, because they feared the Berkut’s headquarters would be attacked by a mob of revenge-seeking protesters after Yanukovich fled to Russia.

So they had evidence about more officers. They knew the new government would not protect them as they were following the orders of the old government, so they acted to protect themselves.

Is it possible the man in question with one hand was innocent? Yes. It's possible the Russian backed killers fled to Russia, and having no one to prosecute, they found someone to placate the people. That would be wrong, but in no way supports your little theory.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Here are some more views from the man who authored your paper.

Separatists shot down the plane.

A Malaysia Airlines plane with nearly 300 people aboard that was likely shot down by separatists


The people in the East do not want to separate from Ukraine.

The survey results also show that views expressed by the Russian government and media concerning widespread popular support for separatism in all of eastern and southern Ukraine are unfounded.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: maghun
some of the protesters killed during the Maidan disturbances may have been accidentally shot by police snipers,


Just how do police snipers "accidentally" shoot people? "I was cleaning it and did not know it was loaded"?

Just an attempt by members of the Yanukovych government to cover things up.

As to your first video, how do you know he was shooting at police? With a .22?
edit on 12-11-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There is no proof that the Separatists shot down the plane. Nice try of trying to debunk his video.


The people in the East do not want to separate from Ukraine.

Your comical i have to say i am quite sure i have seen you around here before.... With the same replies on the matters of Ukraine......



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There is no proof that the Separatists shot down the plane. Nice try of trying to debunk his video.


The people in the East do not want to separate from Ukraine.

Your comical i have to say i am quite sure i have seen you around here before.... With the same replies on the matters of Ukraine......


No, nice try for you cherry picking ONE analysis you agree with and labeling right, and a similar analysis by the SAME PERSON and labeling it wrong because you disagree.

Same person. Either his work can be trusted or not, which is it?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


No, nice try for you cherry picking ONE analysis you agree with
Oh like how you were cherry picking analysis which are the same analysis blasted right out of the westren news outlets?

Example.

1.


So the suspects fled to Russia, who took them in because they were Western agents? Real plausible.

Comical.
2.On Your post of this statement.



A Malaysia Airlines plane with nearly 300 people aboard that was likely shot down by separatists


A few Months have passed no proof came forward.


3. The people in the East do not want to separate from Ukraine.

An desperation point by the war mongers in the western media



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Ask the ukrainian prosecutors about their evidences:


Among the evidence presented against Sadovnyk was a photograph. Prosecutors say it shows him near Kiev’s Independence Square on Feb. 20, wearing a mask and holding a rifle with two hands, his fingers clearly visible.


Photo evidence to prove an order? Interesting...

And form the study:


In particular, this study examines about 30 gigabytes of intercepted radio exchanges of the Security Service of Ukraine Alfa unit, Berkut, the Internal Troops, Omega, and other government agencies during the entire Maidan protests. These files were posted by a pro-Maidan Ukrainian radio amateur on a radio scanners forum, but they never were reported by the media or acknowledged by the Ukrainian government.


Ukrainian special forces used to use german sniper rifles:


The head of the special parliamentary commission reported that ammunition expertise, contrary to an earlier claim by the minister of interior, failed to link any of their weapons to the killed protesters and that many of their Kalashnikov assault rifles, records of their use, and the bullet database disappeared when the new government was in power.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


No, nice try for you cherry picking ONE analysis you agree with

I did not cherry pick anything, I posted quotes from the OP's sources. Is that not allowed? Are we supposed to not read his sources?
edit on 12-11-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: maghun

I gave 2 possibilities. One that he was there, and him having one hand and them showing the wrong picture does not mean he was not there, it only means it's not him in that pic. Likewise him having one hand does not prevent him from ORDERING other men to shoot, which was the crime he was accused of.

The other is that the real people responsible fled to Russia (per YOUR source) and they needed a fall guy. YOUR source claims Russia took in the shooters, why would Russia take in Western backed shooters?

ETA: I am also not saying it could not have been what you suggest, only that your source says 14 snipers fled to Russia, which indicates they were not ordered by the pro-Western people. That doesn't mean there were not shooters from both sides.
edit on 12-11-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: tavi45


It really makes you question the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government and their backers.

Considering that a new constitution can only be created under the rules of the old one, and it wasn't, there are many problems with this "new" government, which is full of "old" members.

The “sniper massacre” fits a pattern of the politically motivated misrepresentations of the mass killing and other cases of violence by the same Ukrainian political forces and the media involved. Such cases include the Odesa massacre on May 2, 2014, killings of civilians in Donbas, and the beating of Tetiana Chornovol last December and the abduction of Dmytro Bulatov, two Maidan activists who became government ministers as a result of these highly publicized cases.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: maghun

Just out of curiosity what rule(s) were not followed?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



Just out of curiosity what rule(s) were not followed?


The impeachment rules for examle.

Or human rights?



...and the rules of "democratic protests":




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: maghun

The impeachment rules for examle.

They were followed. If you disagree state exactly how. I am familiar with the subject and know they were followed.


Or human rights?

Supposition.


...and the rules of "democratic protests":


This video is under the Yanukovych government. So if anything was not followed it was an evil perpetrated by the pro-Russian government that was ousted. Thank you for showing exactly why the people protested.

Exactly what in their Constitution was not followed, and how was it not followed.

So far after my asking for exactly what was not followed you have offered vague explanations without giving me anything in the Constitution that was not followed. You are going to have to do better than that.
edit on 12-11-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



They were followed. If you disagree state exactly how. I am familiar with the subject and know they were followed.


Than please show me the results of the investigation of the comitee and the judgment of the Constitutional Court.


And, crucially, the vote to remove Yanukovych doesn’t seem to have followed constitutional procedures. Under Articles 108-112 of Ukraine’s constitution, there are four ways a sitting president may leave office between elections: resignation, incapacitation, death, and impeachment. None of the first three happened—early rumors to the contrary, Yanukovych has vehemently denied that he resigned—so that leaves the fourth, impeachment. According to Article 111, impeachment must follow a specific set of procedures: Parliament must vote to impeach and then convene a committee to investigate. That committee must investigate and report back to parliament, which must then vote to bring charges. A final vote to convict may only come after receipt of a judgment from the Constitutional Court that “the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of treason or other crime.” Best I can tell, though, those procedures were not followed in this case. Instead, parliament simply voted—380 to 0, in a body with 450 seats—to dismiss Yanukovych and then to hand executive authority on an interim basis to its own speaker.


Last "little" problem:

Parliament votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych on Feb. 22; sets May 25 for new election



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: maghun

Easiest solution ever. Yanukovych fled the country, which is a clear sign of resignation whether he says it was or not. Had he immediately returned then an argument could be made that he did not resign. He of course did not do that because he did not want to be prosecuted. The vote was an acceptance of his resignation. He can not have it both ways, he can not claim he is not resigning, while also not returning.
edit on 12-11-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



which is a clear sign of resignation


Why we need constitution if "signs" are enough?

I wonder why the "new" government failed to collect the needed 380 voting cards (but according to Constitution simple voting is not enough) and only had 328 in hands (literally).




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


He can not have it both ways, he can not claim he is not resigning, while also not returning.


Yes he can! He can form a Government in Exile and claim he is the de jure leader of his country. Apparently, Putin has ordered him not to do that.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: maghun
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



which is a clear sign of resignation


Why we need constitution if "signs" are enough?

He fled the country and refused to come back. Can you show me where in the Constitution he can do that and remain President? Do you think Obama can run away to China and refuse to come back and remain POTUS? Hilarious.


I wonder why the "new" government failed to collect the needed 380 voting cards (but according to Constitution simple voting is not enough) and only had 328 in hands (literally).


Can you show me where the Constitution says they need 380 cards to accept a resignation? He ran away to avoid prosecution. He is welcome to return, he won't.




top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join