Is it justified for the Poroshenko government to use deadly force against its own population specifically when the central government lies about it by claiming that the “insurgents have attacked civilians in order to foment resentment against the government.”
http://m.philstar.com/314190/show/f533967252c993fd2a82b60f6b57763f/?
So what do you say about the central government firing mortars at its own population and the indiscriminate killings that are the result of deliberate government actions?
I have been very critical of Poroshenko’s actions, you won’t find me justifying the deaths of civilians at the hands of their government. The West conveniently ignores what has been going on in eastern Ukraine for the past few weeks, and that is inexcusable in my opinion.
Now, on to your opinion about the sniper issue…
That is commendable that you are consistently against the use of lethal force on any of its citizens by a central government. Do you also agree with this distinction and context that the lethal force used by Yanukovich’s government starting on February 18 was along the lines of self-defense. In contrast the use of force in Donetsk and Slavyansk is not a matter r of self-defense or self preservation of the newly elected Poroshenko government.?
What is at stake in Donetsk and Slavyansk is the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Which is a big bloody deal compared to Yanukovich’s desire to stay in power. So no, no way.
So you would agree that separatists violence and law-breaking in the West of Ukraine on February 19 2014 as reported at the time in Bloomberg was ‘a bloody big deal’ that should have been stopped?
Ukraine Moves Toward Martial Law as Western Region Splits
By Aliaksandr Kudrytski and Daryna Krasnolutska
February 19, 2014 4:23 PM EST
An excerpt:
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-18/ukraine-fighting-leaves-at-least-18-dead-as-kiev-barricades-burn.html
Why are you surprised at the EU and US relative silence and signals of backing now that martial law is being imposed and enforced by the military agsinst the rebels in the east? It appears when seperatists and rioters use violence against an elected government that does not abide by western government’s rules it is wrong for an east leaning governnent to defend itself and fight off an insurrection. But now these same western governments support a full scale military asssult on the eastern regions that have done nothing worse than what the western insurgents did last February.
Will the west start shelling Crimea now too since Porishenko gets away with shelling a small town in the east and killing his own citizens.
Do you believe that bringing up the same old shit and spinning it to your own tune and trying to twist what other posters are saying and arguing is a winning strategy? I’m just curious if you think this sort of horseshit is working for you.
Not the same points at all. You need to read what you obviously cannot argue against.
What were the headlines in Bloomberg News on February 17, 2914?
Here’s an interesting point of view in real time as the anti-government rioters were preparing to march on the Parliament with rocks and Molotov cocktails in hand to throw at police.
Ukraine Opposition to March on Parliament After Merkel Talks
By Editors: Brad Cook February 17, 2014 8:06 AM EST
An excerpt:
When has this been brought up before, XT?
Ukraine Moves Toward Martial Law as Western Region Splits
By Aliaksandr Kudrytski and Daryna Krasnolutska February 19, 2014 4:23 PM EST
And I have not twisted what Batistuta wrote. I cite what he and others wrote. Here it is again if you wish to understand the context of our conversation.
Originally Posted by Batistuta, “What is at stake in Donetsk and Slavyansk is the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Which is a big bloody deal compared to Yanukovich’s desire to stay in power.”
So if Batistuta thinks territorial integrity is a big bloody deal now, I thought I’d ask if he thought the anti-government insurrection on February 19 2014 taking over governments offices and security bases in the west were a big bloody deal as well.
What do you think about the live news at the time that on February 19 there were reports that “Western Region Splits”. Do you agree with Batistuta who thinks splitting off a part of a nation is a ‘big bloody deal’?
The thing is, moving towards Russian influence and perhaps annexation must be stopped at all costs much like how Islamists had to be stopped in Egypt. Yes there’s a touch o hypocrisy here and there but the real world requires best interests be pursued.
Tremendous. Now perhaps XT can see what intelligent conversation without cuss words can be about. The western common viewpoint was on February 17 that moving 100% of Ukraine’s territory toward the EU and away from Russia must be achieved at all costs. On February 17 when Merkel met with the two anti-government leaders in Germany, there was no provision for allowing a legal democratic election to get in the way of the EU/US ‘conquest’ of Ukraine because the EU and US stood behind the violent overthrow of the elected government that stood in what is “right” for “all” Ukraine.
After Yatz and Klitschko met with Merkel on Feb 17 when a truce was in the mix, the very next day the western regions of Ukraine, suffering as the minority party in the legislature, opened up a civil war by siezing local government offices and security bases in their regions, all the while supporting the most radical and violent-minded protesters to march on Parliament to demand the majority party to relinquish control to the demands of the minority and to do it immediately.
That column of the most radical of the protesters and provacateurs on the morning of February 18 was armed with bricks and petrol bombs to throw at police who were rightfully protecting the business of Parliament that morning.
It is more than a “touch” of hypocrisy for Merkel and Obama and the rest in the west to lend support to a violent and extremist insurrection by the minority in government to pelt police with bricks and fire and to occupy and trash government buildings to force the majority in the legislature to submit to minority rule. It is blatant hypocricy by Merkel and Obama to support an insurrection because they would use whatever means necessary to repel a non-peaceful revolt if it were happening to their government at home.
And nowhere on February 18 was there a lick of concern for the Russian Speaking people living in Ukraine. Their fate was to be decided by an extremist and violent minority out of power and the powerful influence of the leader of Germany and the US who were aligned with the protest demands for the majority party to basically resign to mob rule.
Merkel got her pro-EU coup on the 22 of February and justified it all by suggesting peaceful and lawful demonstrators were being shot. Of course the facts that police were shot on the 18th too was a trivial fact that need not be brought to the public’s attention.
Oh, the irony
That doesn’t even deserve an answer. Pretty much every word in that message is inaccurate
That’s not how you spell “using sniper rifles to shoot protesters”.
No. Their fate was decided by last month’s election. And it will be decided again in four year’s time. We call that ‘democracy’
The police being pelted by bricks and firebombs and defending the Parliament were not using sniper rifles on the morning of February 18. So you are grossly in error with your reply.
(1) Tell me which came first to decide their fate. Was it the violent coup in February 2014 or was it the election last month that was held without Crimea’s participation.
(2) Do you think Crimea’s fate was decided last month or will be decided four or five years from now in your Ukrainian ‘democracy’.
Didn’t get much of a response to that question but that early report tells us that six Kiev City police officers were shot to death on February 18 and 39 police officers received gunshot wounds. It is not at all difficult to conclude that the Ukraine Government and the City of Kiev were being confronted by something much more sinister and violent and criminal than what some here call mass protests. But the argument here remains an insistence that use of lethal force against ‘unarmed’ protesters cannot be justified even for self-preservation and establishing basic law and order where police officers are not shot to death or stoned or set on fire when protecting government property and lives.
But now Poroshenko is using lethal force:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-orders-civilian-corridors-war-172528333.html
Now that Poroshenko had orderered the military to fire live ammunition from artillery at citizens of Ukraine where is the outcry from all the pro-Maidan defenders for Poroshenko to abandon the job he was just elected to do?
Are you expecting us to respond to you when you’re talking to yourself? Don’t hold your breath.
No. I don’t hold my breath waiting for comments from those who have no argument and facts that fit their agenda.
Now that Ukraine is killing Ukrainians with the lethal force of artillery the pro-Maidan’s find it inconvenient to dwell on the situation. The have lost interest just as the western news media had done the past few weeks.
I’ll ask again to note for the record what pro-Maidans are now avoiding:
“Now that Poroshenko had orderered the military to fire live ammunition from artillery at citizens of Ukraine where is the outcry from all the pro-Maidan defenders for Poroshenko to abandon the job he was just elected to do?”
So in your mind, an armed militia backed by foreign mercenaries taking over a province is equivalent to a mob throwing bricks in a city square?
They were not simply throwing bricks on a city square. They were throwing bricks on Dec 1 at police defending the President’s HQ. And that was long before any protesters had been shot. And if you were paying attention you’d know that there was an eastern insurrection that coincided with the brick and fire throwing ‘advance’ on Parliament on February 18 that resulted in six police being shot to death and 37 wounded by gunfire.
Open rebellion began on that deadly day in the east where local governments were overthrown. That is violent overthrow of the central government - and one big thing you want forgotten is that the violence in the east happened first. The revolt in the west came in response to the revolt in the east.
Not sure I get what you’re saying, but my response to “where is the outcry from all the pro-Maidan defenders for Poroshenko to abandon the job he was just elected to do?” is that the situations are distinctly different and I don’t see why you expect the same outcry.
Al Jazeera timeline
BBC timeline
What are they missing, or what am I failing to remember that indicates “The revolt in the west came in response to the revolt in the east.”? Since you’ve been so attentive maybe it would be fun for you to create your own timeline so I understand where you are coming from.
No your initial response was without a factual basis to compare the rebellion in the west to brick throwers on a square in Kiev. I pointed out your inaccuracies about that plus reminded you that the original rebellion in the west amount to much more than brick throwing on a square. They overthrew and occupied government buildings in the east and ransacked security outposts for weapons. So the premise in your response was inaccurate.
Yet again you shrugged off the facts.