I don’t think any of us has argued that. We just don’t believe that shooting sniper rifles at your own bloody population is a ‘legitimate means’ of anything. I think the governments of pretty much every developed country would agree with us on that.
Using tactics like snipers killing protesters is both an illegitimate way for a government to protect itself from mass protests as well as being incredibly counter productive. If you want to inflame a nations populous then sniping protesters is one of the best ways to do it.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Arguing that the government started the massive levels of violence is absolute and utter nonsense:
[/QUOTE]
I know that your new thing seems to be parroting back what other people who got good digs on you say because, well, you think that will work for you, but no, it’s not utter nonsense…it’s what actually happened. As has been pointed out to you over and over again. The government started the violence by freaking shooting protesters, by mass imprisonments and torture…that’s all violent shit and the government started it.
No, the only one this is clear to is you, who don’t seem to understand that history didn’t start on the 18th of February. Everyone else seems to be able to follow along with the plain fact that the government did some bad shit BEFORE that freaking date, and this is pretty much what caused the total melt down when history started for you. So ‘clearly’ is purely subjective, because what’s clear to literally everyone else BUT you is not the same as what’s ‘clearly’ evident to you and seemingly ONLY you.
Whoa, I don’t even know what the fuck you are getting at here. Are you saying that CarnalK doesn’t believe an elected government has no legitimate means of repelling a mob? Because if so, where the fuck are you pulling that out of? Are you saying that CarnalK doesn’t believe that a government need to resort to such over the top levels of violence demonstrated by your buddy and his merry minions, because, well, duh, but again, how do you get that from what you quoted??
Here, let me translate what CarnalK said for you:
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
The point is quite obvious. The government started the deadly violence and focusing on who you think started it on February 18 is less important in assigning blame.
[/QUOTE]
Um, well, on second thought I don’t know how to translate this plain English sentence that is completely clear into whatever language it is that you speak. I mean, I can’t even parse this…it’s completely transparent and easy to understand. Sorry, don’t know how to help you with this one.
And no one is saying that they did. Seriously, this is another WTF moment. People were protesting. The government was using draconian measures to stifle that protest. They were arresting, beating and torturing people. Several protesters died. The protesters became increasingly violent in retaliation, taking and giving back several government buildings while they were being strung along, and the levels of violence increased especially after it became clear that things weren’t going to change. That’s what protesters generally do…violence tends to bring out the more radical elements, and this was a powder keg. Instead of calming things down (which he had the chance to do with the call for new elections and a change in parliament), your buddy decided to take it to the next level, which got several of his police officers and a whole bunch of protesters killed and forced him to tuck tail and flee for the great white north.
Why did Klitschko try to stop ‘rioters’ from ‘attacking’ police last December?
Why were ‘rioters’ ‘attacking’ police in December before any ‘rioters’ were killed? Does an elected government have a right to shoot ‘rioters’ specifically when the attacks on the government’s security forces come with the militant and political intent to overthrow the ejected government.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Why did Klitschko try to stop ‘rioters’ from ‘attacking’ police last December?
[/QUOTE]
No idea, and your link here really doesn’t shed any light on what the fuck is going on there. For one thing, the video is confused and, well, in either Ukrainian or Russian, a language I don’t speak (and I doubt you do either). For another, I’m not seeing much attacking in the video, except the guy getting sprayed with the fire extinguisher, which didn’t seem all that vicious of an attack to me…YMMV of course.
Why did Klitschko six weeks after trying to stop rioters from attacking police change his mind and threaten an offensive if protester and rioter demands were not met? An offensive would have to include his now fellow rioters launching more attacks on police would it not?
Klitschko is now the elected Mayor of Kiev.
(Ukraine opposition vows ‘to go on offensive’ if demands …
www.eutimes.net/2014/01/ukraine-opposition-vows-to-go-on…
“ Instructions given to law enforcement authorities were simple: avoid the use of force against peaceful …)
Apparently rioting and calls for offensives against police is rewarded in Ukraine politically.
The point is written in words in English. EU Press described the violent mob as ‘rioters’. And Klitschko in early December tried to stop the rioters from attacking police. Klitschko was over-ruled by radicals hell bent on rioting and attacking police as early as December 2.
The presence of rioters attacking police was reported in December. Then responses by police trying to quell a riot are blamed for starting the violence.
I see why you don’t want to understand the point.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Why did Klitschko six weeks after trying to stop rioters from attacking police change his mind and threaten an offensive if protester and rioter demands were not met? An offensive would have to include his now fellow rioters launching more attacks on police would it not?
[/QUOTE]
Um, because…
Kind of says it all right there, no? To spell it out, their demands weren’t met. I posted links to timelines several times in this thread that would have clued you in. You wouldn’t be very good at Blue’s Clues, seemingly. 
Being on the winning side generally does the trick. Being on the winning side against an obviously oppressive government and being involved and instrumental in kicking their sorry asses out and making folks like your buddy flee helps as well.
What’s the point of, well, any of this horseshit? Do you HAVE a point? Instead of dancing around, why not just come right out and say what it is? Seriously, at this point I don’t think I or anyone else still following along will be shocked or even surprised by anything you trot out, so get it off your chest already.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
The point is written in words in English.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, like a paragraph and a half. Here, let me help you out there by quoting it for you:
That’s it. The rest is the video I described, which, again, doesn’t really show anything except some guys standing around, another guy saying something and being sprayed with a fire extinguisher, then wandering off after shaking his fist at the crowd. Not exactly riveting video there, and not seeing much in the way of violence.
I don’t give a flying fuck what the ‘EU press’ (whatever the hell that is) used as a descriptive noun. So, with that out of the way, again, what’s your point? As others (and I) have noted, there were several clashes between the police and protesters before February 18th. Is this your way of admitting that? If so, then…PROGRESS! Wohoo!
However, are you claiming that these protesters (which you attempt to cleverly spin as ‘rioters’, using the ‘EU press’ vague reference to supposedly back you up) initiated hostilities? And you are basing this on this video showing…well, a bunch of guys standing around, some guy speaking then getting a face full of fire extinguisher? Is that, er, it?
Where is your evidence for that? I showed you a timeline above that sort of contradicts your narrative here. Protesters were initially suppressed in a ‘draconian’ fashion, there were many arrests and evidence of beatings and torture, clashes became more violent, several protesters (and, as far as I know zero police) were killed in the run up to your magical February 18th clash where 9 police and nearly 100 protesters were killed.
Um, because you are busy dancing around and all the handwaving and such is distracting?
So is it your view that following the many weeks of rioting in Kiev, the government has to give in to the rioters demands because the rioters threaten to launch more attacks on police and government property?
Definition of mob rule according to XT:
It helps to throw Molotov Cocktails into the ‘winning’ elected Party’s HQ setting fire to their building and killing a staffer. One petrol bomb one vote - the winning formula for mobocracy.
You are quite generous to call the rioters ‘protesters’. The ones attacking police and siezing buildings and obstructing government are not protesters. I peacefully protested the proposed invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters right next to our Nation’s Capitol. Had I seen a protester throw a fire bomb at a police officer - I would applaud the police beating the shit out of that shithead and dragging his sorry ass off to jail. If enough shitheads managed to break through police lines to get too close to the US Congress in session - whatever it takes including lethal force and live ammunition should be used to disperse them. If police get killed and you don’t wish to be killed - get out and end the protest until people who would kill police have been eliminated.
We were trying to stop a war in DC. They were trying to stop a trade deal in Kiev. Neither justifies occupying government buildings and wounding and eventually killing police. But opposition to ‘a trade deal’ is legitimate reason to go from peaceful protest to riot? Many of you need to ask yourselves what it is you are thinking.
No - One of main leaders of the protest movements was trying to stop the rioters in December from attacking police. So why was a leader of the protest movement trying to stop protesters from attacking police? What’s wrong with attacking police when your protest is legitimate?
Sorry you were expecting to see violence but were let down to see so little. My point had to do with a protest leader trying to stop violence and why its ok to so many here that he failed to keep the protest movement peaceful.
No, I didn’t say that. Or, let me ask anyone still following along that isn’t you…did anyone else feel this was my stance based on the actual context of the discussion and what I said both here and earlier?
No, you are quoting me out of context and then ascribing to me your own spin that has nothing to do with what I said either in the quote or in the context of the discussion. Again, let me ask anyone that isn’t you…is that the impression I’m giving?
Yes, he was. So what? He was obviously trying to defuse the situation right then, and reading what little was in your epic link and video, he was probably doing it more to protest the protesters than the police, since he probably knew that if the protesters attacked the police then the police and the other goons of the government would shoot them with snipers and such. Granted, this is MY spin on things, but there is so little there that one has to look at it in the context of what had happened and what was brewing. You are trying to spin this your way, but if you actually read the blurb in the link YOU provided it’s impossible to leap to the conclusions you are leaping too.
Seriously, man, do you really think that this sort of thing works? Do you still not understand the power of folks reading the thread to SCROLL UP??
As for your point, basically that’s YOUR SPIN ON WHAT HAPPENED BACKED UP BASICALLY BY YOUR OPINION. The link you provided doesn’t back up what you are saying there, the facts don’t back up your spin and no amount of handwavage by you is going to change that.
I’m glad you are not on my side. The 'draconian’ fashion supprssion did not happen ‘initially’ or before the first day of December last year. This was the day when we learned that there were provocateurs engaging in and inciting violence on the anti-government side:
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25176191
What violence were the mainstream protest leaders referring to about 50 days before the ‘draconian’ anti-protest law was passed XT? The BBC tells you what it was:
What happens if a mob commandeers a bulldozer and drives it straight at the White House or a location where a US President is residing?
And this:
Oh dear, the draconian riot police used stun grenades and tear gas to force back the crowd aligned with a bull-dozer approaching the President’s HQ wanting him to resign. The police are then pelted with bricks and paving stones for protecting the President of Ukraine.
And while the police had their hands full protecting Yanukovich’s HQ with all those rocks being accidentally thrown bricks and a bull-dozer accidentally rumbling at police lines…, not far away:
Peaceful protest eh?
This violence was on December 1, 2013. Here’s the much more violent protest after the draconian law was passed around January 23.
(updated 11:42 AM EST 01.23.14 Ukrainians rally against new protest law By Victoria Butenko and Laura Smith-Spark, CNN)
And by the way the BBC report says “A police spokeswoman said about 100 police were injured in the clashes near the presidential headquarters.”.
But facts be damned, it was the police that caused these ‘provocateurs’ to engage in violence directed at police.
No, that’s just something he made up.
I did not make anything up. I am arguing that there is no justification for the violence and riots that came with the Maidan protests. i argue that point specifically with regard to rioters attacking police with fire bombs and 5 to 10 lb bricks. There is no justification specifically on the days that police were killed when many of them were shot to death as were many protesters.
There is no justification for protesters blocking the government from operating, and occupying a bank and government buildings. XT and others tell me I am wrong. If I am wrong to XT 's way of thinking, then the maidan mob’s ‘out of control’ violence has to be justifiable in his reasoning that does not agree with mine.
You do realize that XT’s statement below is false and full of error:
This is the part of XT’s statement that is false: “I’m saying that the mob violence was a direct result of the crack down of the government against any protest…”
The first severe mob ‘provacateur’ attacks on police, where 100 police were reportedly injured, was on December 1, 2013 at the presidential HQ confrontation. The police in my view were Quite justified to use tear gas and stun grenades in order to repel an attack agsinst the President’s HQ. The protesters were not justified in pelting the police with bricks and attempting to break through police lines with a front end loader to get at the president a HQ.
Do you agree with me that protesters were not justified to attack police on December first as they did? Do you agrer that the police were justified in repelling that protester advance.
Ceasefire Watch and Status: encouraging news is at hand
Let’s everyone keep steady, here. Don’t let things get heated up again.
It’s a simple rule, really: Repelling protesters is OK, shooting them with sniper rifles is not. The moment a government crosses that line, it loses all legitimacy.