Hacked Emails Expose George Soros As Ukraine Puppet-Master

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am not responsible for what you think.

And you can PM anyone on this site if you want to know what they know about your "bias".

a reply to: Nowornevertill

Zerohedge is a biased propaganda blog site. Maybe do some research on it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The same can be said for Russian government figures visiting occupied Crimea.

Bidens son didn't get a job as oil CEO. he was hired in the legal department. Secondly he just died of brain cancer so your argument there is pretty much gone.

First: Crimea is not occupied, the people voted for their freedom from kiews bunch of stupid fascist as they started killing people.

Western experts agree that both the Crimean parliament's vote and the imminent referendum on the region entering the Russian Federation are not binding under international law. Although the Ukrainian constitution does allow local referendums on political questions, alterations to Ukraine's borders require national referendums. In other words, only the entire Ukrainian population can legally decide whether Crimea should join Russia.

Although a people does have the right to self-determination in principle, a small group within a people can only claim that right in exceptional circumstances. Despite the many political tensions currently mounting in the region, the inhabitants of Crimea have not reached that stage - yet.

www.dw.de...


Second: Why shouldn't Hunter Biden join the board of a gas company in Ukraine? You know exactly why.

Never heard of it. Perhaps that's because it's a Ukrainian gas company; Ukraine's largest private gas producer, in fact. He's taking charge of the company's legal unit.

Isn't that a bit fishy? Why do you say that?

Because he's the vice-president's son! That's a coincidence. "This is totally based on merit," said Burisma's chairman, Alan Apter.

www.theguardian.com...

Third: thanks for bumping the thread with some funny attempts to derail the topic.
But as you claim to spill out facts all the time, I'm curious how you may disprove dw and the guardian now.

Obey a nice day!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
First: Crimea is not occupied, the people voted for their freedom from kiews bunch of stupid fascist as they started killing people.

No ethnic Russia were killed as Russia claimed. Secondly Russia occupied Crimea before any votes occurred, invalidating the votes under international law.

Crimea is in fact occupied.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Second: Why shouldn't Hunter Biden join the board of a gas company in Ukraine? You know exactly why.

Because he is a lawyer and joined the legal department of a company based out of Cypress that does business in a bunch of countries, Ukraine included. No really, please explain to us what you mean.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Isn't that a bit fishy? Why do you say that?

He is a lwayer, and joined the companies legal unit. Fishy? It would be fishy if he had a degree in underwater basket weaving and joined the legal department. You are seeing conspiracy where one does not exist.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Because he's the vice-president's son! That's a coincidence.

Its because he has a legal degree and joined the legal department.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Third: thanks for bumping the thread with some funny attempts to derail the topic.
But as you claim to spill out facts all the time, I'm curious how you may disprove dw and the guardian now.

Obey a nice day!

I don't mind bumping away if it allows people a chance to see your point of view, as well as others, and to challenge the conclusion you reached.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I'm afraid the crimea elections were a scam perpetrated by the Russian government. Even Russia admitted it in a report they accidently released. In fact only 20 percent of them voted according to that report. Then there is the UN report on the elections again voter fraud intimidation and even worse people were arrested and even killed.

This isn't how an election is conducted and why the UN doesn't recognize the results. The only country that did oddly Russia. Because of course they wanted crimea in an imperial land grab. Russia is the only country since worls war two to annex other countries territory.And whenever you send military to occupy another country like Putin admitted to that is an invasion.

a reply to: dragonridr
a reply to: Xcathdra

The dw-article actually states the opposite and I will keep sticking to the facts.

You folks just write down 'your' thoughts, which is fine for me. But you lack convincing evidence after all, there is no point in discussing this further.

And to add another 'strange coincidence'...

Neocon Fugitive Given Ukraine Province

Exclusive: Ukraine’s President Poroshenko has tapped another international “carpetbagger” to rule his people, ex-Georgian President Saakashvili, a neocon hero wanted in his homeland for embezzlement and human rights abuses who now governs Odessa, reports Robert Parry.

consortiumnews.com...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yup.. the US and EU both noted their concern over the prosecution noting it bares the signs of political retribution.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: dragonridr
a reply to: Xcathdra

The dw-article actually states the opposite and I will keep sticking to the facts.

You folks just write down 'your' thoughts, which is fine for me. But you lack convincing evidence after all, there is no point in discussing this further.

Here I'll make it easy for you I assume you don't have access to google. Maybe your job dorsnt allow it. But it's easy to verify Russias vote in crimea was a fraud.
www.businessinsider.com...
dailysignal.com...

www.slate.com...

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

Well... at least one valuable piece of information for my consideration, thank you very much.

Crimea's referendum was a sham display of democracy

www.theguardian.com...

Yes, thats what the dw-article stated as well. We go along here.
I remember another case of fraud as some EU-politicians dictated decisions and ignored the President from a memberstate, for example Papandreou as he had to cancel the referendum he intended to hold in greece some years ago. Ok, we might go along on fraud as well. Crimea's referendum was a sham display of democracy indeed, but I still see no occupation/ annexation at all.

And with regards to the war against civilians (not terrorists), this referendum might even get legalised afterwards. Depends on the outcome of Minsk I guess. Poroschenko promised enough to get peace but had some serious problems keeping his falcons in check, we all saw that one as well. Peacekeeper-missions may offer a solution, let's hope for the best.

Although a people does have the right to self-determination in principle, a small group within a people can only claim that right in exceptional circumstances. Despite the many political tensions currently mounting in the region, the inhabitants of Crimea have not reached that stage - yet..

www.dw.de...

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: dragonridr

Well... at least one valuable piece of information for my consideration, thank you very much.

Crimea's referendum was a sham display of democracy

www.theguardian.com...

Yes, thats what the dw-article stated as well. We go along here.
I remember another case of fraud as some EU-politicians dictated decisions and ignored the President from a memberstate, for example Papandreou as he had to cancel the referendum he intended to hold in greece some years ago. Ok, we might go along on fraud as well. Crimea's referendum was a sham display of democracy indeed, but I still see no occupation/ annexation at all.

And with regards to the war against civilians (not terrorists), this referendum might even get legalised afterwards. Depends on the outcome of Minsk I guess. Poroschenko promised enough to get peace but had some serious problems keeping his falcons in check, we all saw that one as well. Peacekeeper-missions may offer a solution, let's hope for the best.

Although a people does have the right to self-determination in principle, a small group within a people can only claim that right in exceptional circumstances. Despite the many political tensions currently mounting in the region, the inhabitants of Crimea have not reached that stage - yet..

www.dw.de...

Occupation was russian troops illegally seizing Ukraine's property. This isn't hard in fact occurred before the vote we both agree was a joke. So if they sent troops into Ukraine's territory and then faked voting in a referendum to take crimea doesn't take a genus to figure out it was an invasion and occupation.until they leave they are occupying Ukraine's territory just like they did in georgia.

a reply to: dragonridr

Before you keep me waiting again, I will add some information as part of my duty.

Originally the referendum was to be about the status of Crimea within Ukraine and was initially set for May 25, but later, on March 1, it was pushed back to March 30.[50] The referendum was approved by the Supreme Council of Crimea on February but the Central Election Commission of Ukraine denounced [27] it by stating that the Crimean authorities do not possess the legal jurisdiction to conduct it.[51] Regarding the referendum's initial purpose, the Daily Telegraph reported on February 27, that it, "appears to be for greater autonomy within Ukraine rather than for full independence."[52]

On March 4, the district administration court of Kiev nullified the no confidence vote in the Council of Ministers of Crimea and the appointment of Sergey Aksyonov as Prime Minister of Crimea and declared the organization and conduct of the referendum as illegal.[53][54] On March 6, the Supreme Council changed the date of the referendum from March 30 to March 16 and changed the choice for the referendum from greater autonomy to accession to the Russian Federation. This decision was made with 78 votes in favor and 8 abstentions.[55]

en.wikipedia.org...

Later in march, as they voted to join Russia:

Russia's President Vladimir Putin admitted that the “little green men” who seized strategic points in Crimea in March were Russian troops.

In a traditional session which gives opportunity to Russians to pose questions to the head of state, Putin said the main goal was to protect the freedom of the Crimean people, so they can freely express their will in the referendum, which took place on March 16. By an overwhelming majority the Crimeans voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation.

“So that there will be no tanks, no nationalist combat groups and people with extremist views, armed with automatic weapons, behind the self defence forces of Crimea, naturally stood our troops,” Putin said in answer to the question who were the well-armed masked military units with no insignia, ironically dubbed “the little green men”. “Their actions were very fair, but decisive and professional.”

www.novinite.com...“Little+Green+Men”+in+Crimea+Were+Russian+Troops

...So the people actually had no part in this.. 'occupation' ? Aha. Now you may try to back up your story, bro.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The Russians invaded and occupied Crimea before the vote occurred. The government of Crimea was over thrown when the Russians invaded. There was no vote for those individuals that were the Junta in Crimea.

The vote was and still is a sham and no one recognizes it.

The sanctions on Russia are contingent upon Russia withdrawing from Ukraine, including Crimea.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Read this you'll see how moscow did everything behind closed doors locking out Crimea's own politicians and inserted their guy into leadership. The people never had a vote. In fact the ballots were all ready filled out before the elections. When pro russian forces mysteriously had ballots disappear from a locked safe.and wouldn't allow law makers into the building but somehow they magically voted.


"At least one Party of Regions deputy told Reuters his vote was recorded as cast for Aksyonov though he was not in the city, much less the building.

The next morning before dawn, armed men seized the building, and from then on, journalists were excluded and it was not possible to verify whether a quorum was reached. Lawmakers had their phones confiscated at the door.

Among those not allowed in was Anatoly Mogilyov, Crimea's regional prime minister, appointed by Yanukovich. Mogilyov had spoken out against breaking away from Kiev, and the ruling party he represented - Yanukovich's Party of the Regions which controlled 80 seats in the 100 seat legislature - was publicly committed to autonomy within Ukraine."


"The Kremlin also says the vote to install Aksyonov followed all legal procedures in Crimea, but no independent journalists were permitted inside to witness it. At least one Party of Regions deputy told Reuters his vote was recorded as cast for Aksyonov though he was not in the city, much less the building.
I wasn't even in Simferopol but my vote was counted," said the lawmaker, who spoke on condition he not be identified, saying he had received threatening calls and text messages.

The lawmaker said duplicate voting cards were taken from parliament's safe to allow votes to be cast in the name of people who were not present. He was aware of at least 10 votes that were cast for people who were not in the chamber. They have not come forward for fear of reprisals, he added."

HERE'S ANOTHER INTERESTING QUOTE.


"Pilunsky, the Crimean opposition lawmaker, said ruling party figures in Crimea had switched allegiance to Moscow to protect themselves from the prospect of investigation by the new authorities in Kiev over their years in power in the province."
mobile.reuters.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

Read this you'll see how moscow did everything behind closed doors locking out Crimea's own politicians and inserted their guy into leadership.

Yeah... the Green Goblin faked all the votes. Sure. Any evidence to support this claim?

But for the authorities in Kiev and local politicians still loyal to Ukraine, the rapid pace of events were evidence of a carefully orchestrated campaign from Moscow.

mobile.reuters.com...

Nothing, just some talking heads full of propaganda. Otherwise we would have to listen only to people from the Donbass to get some information regarding the war. You wouldn't do that as well, would you? A source should be objective at best, otherwise it's just part of the information-warfare.

You say the people had no part in this, but we would see many demonstrations, perhaps even violence, if this would have been the case. Actually the opposite is true:

The U.S and European Union may want to save Crimeans from themselves. But the Crimeans are happy right where they are.

www.forbes.com...

I would have decided to leave this snake pit as well:

As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.

Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state—former warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.

observer.com...

A dubious mental state some people decided to fight for, with dubious means of course.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Yeah... the Green Goblin faked all the votes. Sure. Any evidence to support this claim?

Putin's 'Human Rights Council' Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results

As you may recall, the official Crimean election results, as reported widely in the Western press, showed a 97 percent vote in favor of annexation with a turnout of 83 percent. No international observers were allowed. The pro-Russia election pressure would have raised the already weak vote in favor of annexation, of course.

in reality -

Yesterday, however, according to a major Ukrainian news site, TSN.ua, the website of the President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights (shortened to President’s Human Rights Council) posted a report that was quickly taken down as if it were toxic radioactive waste. According to this purported report about the March referendum to annex Crimea, the turnout of Crimean voters was only 30 percent. And of these, only half voted for the referendum–meaning only 15 percent of Crimean citizens voted for annexation.

Secondly Russia invaded and occupied Crimea BEFORE any vote occurred.
Putin acknowledges Russian military serviceman were in Crimea

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Nothing, just some talking heads full of propaganda. Otherwise we would have to listen only to people from the Donbass to get some information regarding the war. You wouldn't do that as well, would you? A source should be objective at best, otherwise it's just part of the information-warfare.

Yet you disregard facts that don't support the Russian version of events. please explain to us, if the vote wasn't rigged, why the illegal vote in Crimea never contained an option to remain with Ukraine?

Please explain why the "leadership" in Donetsk and Luhansk appointed themselves without local elections. Explain why the Crimean government was seized by Russian forces and appointed there own leader with no votes from the people.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
You say the people had no part in this, but we would see many demonstrations, perhaps even violence, if this would have been the case. Actually the opposite is true:

unless you are a Tatar or pro Ukrainian in which case you get disappeared.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
I would have decided to leave this snake pit as well:

Russia currently has more neo Nazis in their government than Ukraine, which has 0. They were all voted out in the last parlkiment elections. Russia on the other hand has over 50+ neo Nazi socialists in their duma.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state—former warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.

A dubious mental state some people decided to fight for, with dubious means of course.


You just described Darth putin.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Secondly Russia invaded and occupied Crimea BEFORE any vote occurred.

Any evidence to support your claim? The wikipedia-article is wrong then?
You would rather stick to your beloved opinion that to plain facts, right?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But you didn't invest a few minutes to read the forbes-article, did you?

a major Ukrainian news site

...but zerohedge is ideologically blindfolded? Aha. You may be right about that but 'somehow' forgot to apply the same high standart to your own sources. Who owns this 'news site', any suggestions?

Find a second source (maybe even an objective one) for your claim and I will start to think about it.

According to this purported report about the March referendum to annex Crimea, the turnout of Crimean voters was only 30 percent. And of these, only half voted for the referendum–meaning only 15 percent of Crimean citizens voted for annexation.

Complete rubbish, how can a referendum vote for an annexation? Either it was a referendum to secede or an annexation without any regards for democratic standarts.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Any evidence to support your claim? The wikipedia-article is wrong then?
You would rather stick to your beloved opinion that to plain facts, right?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I provided you a link to the RT article where Putin admitted the little green men were in fact Russian soldiers. Those soldiers were NOT the Russian forces deployed to the naval base. Secondly the agreement Russia had with Ukraine set forth the forces Russia could have, including number of people deployed, weapons etc. The agreement also restricted Russian forces from leaving their bases and heading into the countryside, which is what occurred.


The deployment of Russian occupation forces in Crimea occurred BEFORE any vote occurred = invasion / illegal occupation by about a month prior.

in this case the facts come directly from Russia's actions and putins own mouth. Are you saying Putin is wrong and lying?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Complete rubbish, how can a referendum vote for an annexation? Either it was a referendum to secede or an annexation without any regards for democratic standarts.

Because a referendum occurred under the false guise that Crimea was independent of Ukraine, which is was not. The referendum gave the option of being independent (defacto part of Russia) or joining Russia (defacto part of Russia). It never gave the option of remaining with Ukraine.

Secondly the report I linked to about the voting numbers came directly from Putin's own Human rights Council. Take your issues up with the Russian government since it is they who are responsible.

Belief is completely up to you however when my sources come from the Russians it makes one wonder how objective you are in this. You are intentionally ignoring information that is put out by Putins government.

So let me ask -

Is Putins government lying now or was Putins government lying then?

a reply to: Xcathdra

He's to bias to ever admit the truth even when Putin tells him. Russians are fed so much propaganda through their tvs they can't tell reality anymore. Part of their propaganda campaign is in fact information overload. Don't give one scenario give dozens. Even when they tell the truth the Russians release so much garbage people can't tell. Like crimea we have the Russian government admitting the vote was faked yet we still have trolls saying it was legal.we have lawmakers from Crimea's Duma telling us the vote was rigged. Putin's admission he sent I'm troops. Even with mh17 we have an admission in voice recordings they shot it down yet people try to blame ulraine.

It amazes me how effective Russian propagan d a can be think about it we have a voice recording of them admitting they shot it down and they even posted online they did. Yet people want to fog the issue. I'm really thinking Nazis are returning and they aren't in Kiev.

In 1990, during war in Croatia (ex Yugoslavia war) George Soros made newspaper to promote freedom and a democratic state, i worked for this paper and it was anti communist, anti war, and we in Croatia printed flyers to promote democracy in Serbia during Milosevic (ex dictator and war criminal- google him) great Serbia war v.s. rest of former Yugoslavia. It helped morally but did not stop Milosevic, nato did. From my perspective he made a morally acceptable choice. a reply to: joemoe