Snipers who killed police and protesters in Kiev were Right Wing radicals and mercenaries!

[another_liberal]

More eye-witness evidence is now available that the gunmen who began shooting at Maidan protesters and the police lines facing them were actually anti-government protesters themselves, as well as foreign mercenaries:

Kiev snipers shooting from bldg controlled by Maidan forces –Ex-Ukraine security chief.

Former chief of Ukraine’s Security Service has confirmed allegations that snipers who killed dozens of people during the violent unrest in Kiev operated from a building controlled by the opposition on Maidan square. Shots that killed both civilians and police officers were fired from the Philharmonic Hall building in Ukraine’s capital, former head of the Security Service of Ukraine Aleksandr Yakimenko told Russia 1 channel. The building was under full control of the opposition and particularly the so-called Commandant of Maidan self-defense Andrey Parubiy who after the coup was appointed as the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Yakimenko added.

Furthermore the former security chief believes that Parubiy has been in contact with US Special Forces that could have coordinated the assault. “Shots came from the Philharmonic Hall. Maidan Commandant Parubiy was responsible for this building. Snipers and people with automatic weapons were ‘working’ from this building on February 20. They supported the assault on the Interior Ministry forces on the ground who were already demoralized and have, in fact, fled,” Yakimenko said in an interview with Russian television.

The police officers were chased by a group of rioters armed with various weapons and at that point, Yakimenko says snipers fired at pursuers themselves. “When the first wave of shootings ended, many have witnessed 20 people leaving the building,” former chief says, noting that they were well-equipped and were carrying military style bag for carrying sniper and assault rifles with optical sights. Not only the law enforcers, but people from the opposition’s Freedom, Right Sector, Fatherland, and Klitschko’s UDAR party have also seen this, Yakimenko claims.

The former security head also said that according to the intelligence those snipers could be foreigners, including mercenaries from former Yugoslavia as well former Special Forces employees from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry. Yakimenko claims that Parubiy was part of a group that was heavily influenced by the people associated with the US secret services. “These were the forces that carried out everything that they were told by their leadership – the United States,” Yakimenko explained, claiming that Maidan leaders practically lived in the US embassy.

(snip)

Read more at: http://rt.com/news/ukraine-snipers-security-chief-438/

[newfie11]

1. Not surprised

The US loves and is addicted to war.
This was also on storm clouds gathering although many on here would deny it.

[another_liberal]

2. Oh yes, the business of America is war.

And as to the deniers: They should be along, and in force, any minute now.

[newfie11]

3. I'm sure they will

Denying won't change the truth or the history of America's behind the scenes escapades in other countries.

I once was a denier until I studied our involvement in South America. Follow the unrest in other countries, especially oil producing ones.
But denying is easier.

[another_liberal]

4. It is indeed hard to both love one's country . . .

And to recognize and accept its serious faults.

[840high]

101. Indeed.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. I'll have to see another source besides RT reporting this before

I make any judgement on it.

[another_liberal]

8. How about this for a start?

This much is known: Snipers firing powerful rifles from rooftops and windows shot scores of people in the heart of Kiev. Some victims were opposition protesters, but many were civilian bystanders clearly not involved in the clashes. Among the dead were medics, as well as police officers. A majority of the more than 100 people who died in the violence were shot by snipers; hundreds were also injured by the gunfire and other street fighting.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0308/Kiev-snipers-Who-was-behind-them

And this:

A phone conversation suggesting snipers who shot protesters in Kiev might have acted on the orders delivered by the opposition coalition - not former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich - has been leaked online. The phone conversation features Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet telling EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton his suspicions regarding sniper attacks on protestors that took place in Kiev in February.

According to the description of the related video uploaded on YouTube, the call was taped by officers of the Ukrainian security services (SBU), loyal to Yanukovich. Paet is heard telling Ashton that there was evidence both protesters and security forces came under sniper fire during the deadly protests in the Ukrainian capital last month. During the conversation Paet airs the possibility that members of the opposition coalition might have had something to do with the shootings.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-protests-leaked-eu-phone-call-suggests-kiev-snipers-were-hired-by-opposition-coalition-1439035

[LuvNewcastle]

15. The fact that there were snipers is confirmed, but nowhere

in those two articles does it say anything like this:

Yakimenko claims that Parubiy was part of a group that was heavily influenced by the people associated with the US secret services. “These were the forces that carried out everything that they were told by their leadership – the United States,” Yakimenko explained, claiming that Maidan leaders practically lived in the US embassy.

It's possible that Americans were aiding the protesters, but I have to see someone besides RT claiming that. It's a very serious charge to say that the snipers were acting on behalf of the U.S. or that they were practically living in the U.S. embassy. I think that's an example of RT spin, and it's why I don't trust them as a news source.

[Bad Thoughts]

19. Those articles don't prove OP

The articles describe how rumors and conspiracy theories are addressed. Not one is someone in the new government saying that they or a portesting group hired snipers. Of course, it has been addressed that the BBC found one--just one--sniper at the hotel. All the rest of the shots came from government sources who were shooting protesters in accordance with Yanukovitch's measures, regardless of their affiliation.

[functioning_cog]

21. CSMonitor spends most of the article saying it

Could be Russian special forces behind the mass shootings. It would be in keeping with Putin's style.

[FSogol]

6. Unrec. Every RT article should include the prefix, "Putin Sez...."

[another_liberal]

10. You are entitled to your opinion . . .

And so are the rest of us.

[tkmorris]

88. All opinions are not equal

You are, of course, entitled to it. It's value is another matter.

[joshcryer]

7. Which is why they were in government buildings and controlled territory.

RT is pathetic.

[another_liberal]

9. The philharmonic building was completely under protester control when the shooting began.

Please at least read the OP before you start trying to trash it. Thank you.

[joshcryer]

13. I was watching their live stream.

So, no, this "official" is just lying.

Show the video, show the images. They are all from police controlled territory.

I find it absolutely amazing they can't produce said images. All they have produced is one guy with a pellet gun and a couple of others with hand guns (and no indication they ever killed anyone given the distances and accuracy involved).

[another_liberal]

14. Just because CNN didn't show any video of snipers in the Philharmonic building . . .

That does not mean they weren't there, and firing first. Don't you think, or don't you?

[joshcryer]

24. The live stream wasn't CNN.

It was the euromajdan ustream channel. I spent many mornings watching it.

I saw the violent incursions and death live in many cases. I know who the instigators were and I'm not going to fall for propaganda.

[dipsydoodle]

20. See reply #12 for link to BBC footage.

.

[joshcryer]

23. I've seen it.

It's unconvincing that the majority of the murders and people shot (who were mostly protesters) came from the side of the protesters. The fact that so many tucked tail and ran indicates their level of guilt.

[sendero]

11. Really...

.... no sarcasm tag?

We are not likely to ever know the truth about what happened in Kiev. And even worse, we probably don't really want to know.

[another_liberal]

16. I must confess . . .

I offered this OP quite seriously, and see no call for a sarcasm tag. Your closing comment is more relevant, we may indeed never be able to definitively prove the guilt of protest leaders for these wanton murders of innocents.

[sendero]

18. This has all the hallmarks of a false flag..

.... type of operation. But by who? How could we ever find out, really?

In the fullness of time as events unfold maybe we can see "who benefits". But right now, there are several players that could have done it IMHO.

[CJCRANE]

22. Another DUer pointed out that...

Victoria Nuland is married to Robert Kagan, the co-founder of PNAC, and exponent of regime change in Iraq and elsewhere.

[sendero]

27. It's messy..

.... and the complement of folks they decided to shoot makes it even messier.

[Alex_]

32. Investigation

The German Gov is pushing for a transparent investigation of the shooting monitored by international bodies, so something may actually come out of this, this was a statement by their Foreign Minister (this is based on a Handelsblatt article (in German) this morning)

[Alex_]

12. A.L.

there is a video (BBC, not RT) showing that the shots came from protestor-controlled Hotel Ukraine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024645902#post8

[another_liberal]

17. Thank you very much!

I had not even known that film even existed.

Gosh, I wonder why it hasn't been given wider coverage? (sarcasm intended)

[nationalize the fed]

25. John Perkins wrote about these things

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

...According to his book, Perkins' function was to convince the political and financial leadership of underdeveloped countries to accept enormous development loans from institutions like the World Bank and USAID. Saddled with debts they could not hope to pay, those countries were forced to acquiesce to political pressure from the United States on a variety of issues. Perkins argues in his book that developing nations were effectively neutralized politically, had their wealth gaps driven wider and economies crippled in the long run. In this capacity Perkins recounts his meetings with some prominent individuals, including Graham Greene and Omar Torrijos. Perkins describes the role of an EHM as follows:

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How America Really Took Over the World (2005)

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is a book written by John Perkins and published in 2004. It provides Perkins' account of his career with consulting firm Chas. T. Main in Boston. Before employment with the firm, he interviewed for a job with the National Security Agency (NSA). Perkins claims that this interview effectively constituted an independent screening which led to his subsequent hiring by Einar Greve, a member of the firm (and alleged NSA liaison) to become a self-described "economic hit man".

[another_liberal]

29. Excellent post!

I had heard of Mr. Perkins book but had forgotten the author's name and the book's title. Now, thanks to your reply, I have both again!

[malaise]

38. I have my copy right here

We've been Hit by the Hitman alright

[another_liberal]

42. The people of Ukraine . . .

I would guess the people of Ukraine are on the auction block right now.

[polly7]

43. +1000 nt.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

84. Excellent. Thanks. nt

[leftynyc]

26. I'm going to need a MUCH more reliable

source than the putin mouthpiece RT.

[another_liberal]

28. Fine with me . . .

Just don't reject any source out-of-hand. You will only be cheating yourself if you discard potentially valuable information merely because of a bias against the nation which hosts that source. Remember, our Western news media is almost exclusively owned by a small group of billionaire plutocrats who consider you and me as beneath them entirely.

[sufrommich]

30. RT is about as believable as InfoWars. nt

[another_liberal]

35. Those with no counter argument . . .

I have found that those with no counter argument tend to just insult the source.

Know what I mean?

[Renew Deal]

41. You have a point

When will the truth be told about the Clinton alien baby?



Because sources are meaningless you know.

[another_liberal]

45. Use your intellect to discriminate between sources with something to offer . . .

And those sources which don't even try to actually inform you. Trust your intellect, and don't be afraid to consider if your opinions may be wrong after all.

"The first step in becoming educated is to admit you don't already know everything there is to know."

[Renew Deal]

49. OK. From the Colombia Journalism Review

Increasingly, it is hard to watch RT and not get the sense that the people making the decisions are wrestling with that very question. Even though Russia’s relationship with the U.S. will surely have its ups and downs in the coming years, it’s unlikely there will be a need for the kind of shrill propaganda outlet that RT has been.

http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all

[another_liberal]

51. Commentators can have their price, just like so many other people.

Whoever authored this piece has clearly had his asking price met.

[Renew Deal]

102. Either you are irony challenged

or have a great sense of humor. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4659385

[malaise]

31. Don't you know that killing for 'freedom and democracy'

is different than any other killing. Ask those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who aren't even mentioned these days.

[another_liberal]

39. They're just a million examples of collateral damage.

"We're the freedom givers!"

[malaise]

40. And with it comes the Economic Hitman

sharing his Shock Doctrine for the 99%

[jeff47]

33. Thank you for the post, Mr. Putin. (nt)

[another_liberal]

36. Hi, jeff!

Thanks for stopping by.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

34. Oh RT, aren't you just so adorable? nt

[another_liberal]

37. There are a lot of oh so sweet stories about kittens . . .

Enjoy!

[fascisthunter]

47. You are in Full-Blown Denial Mode.

[cherokeeprogressive]

100. THIS is Full-Blown Denial Mode:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4659541

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. The photo shows people shooting upwards from a ground-level trash dumpster

How does this bolster the claim that non-government forces were firing into a crowd of protesters? For all we know the men depicted in the photo are shooting government snipers who in turn were killing civilians. Propaganda journalism at its worst, both in intent and quality.

[another_liberal]

50. Where is it said the photo is of those who fired from the Philharmonic building?

This photo is obviously not of the people who fired at protesters and police from the upper floors of the protester controlled Philharmonic building on Maidan Square; however, no one said the only protesters who had guns on the streets of Kiev were the snipers in the Philharmonic building. If this photo suggests anything, it is that protesters other than those in the afore-mentioned building did indeed use firearms during the protests.

[SidDithers]

108. Post #54 was a dumbass hide, btw...

Sid

[fascisthunter]

46. Holy Sh*t... it's as bad as I Thought

Insidious.

[another_liberal]

52. This article was an eye-opener for me.

After reading what is reported there, I honestly have to admit that "It" is considerably worse than I had thought./

[fascisthunter]

55. What is Needed Though is another International Report on This

RT is now suspect of carrying water for Russia now that a reporter has quit their job with allegations. I know Thom Hartmann is legit and so are many others, but now there is a problem with credabilty regarding RT as a whole(as if our corporate media didn't have a credibility issue).

[another_liberal]

58. The story of who the snipers really were is dwelt with elsewhere . . .

But not in anything like this detail and depth. Sadly, it seems no other news service is willing to give voice to the comments of this former Ukrainian official with the goods on who the shooters were, and who was behind their attacks. Only Russia Today, apparently, allows that kind of freedom of access to those with a different story to tell than the one ordained by the main stream big boys.

Look for the comments of the Estonian Foreign Minister on who fired the first shots in Maidan Square. That story is at least carried by several Western sources. For example:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-bugged-call-catherine-ashton-urmas-paet

[fascisthunter]

60. Thank You!

[fascisthunter]

66. Well, from what I have Read

it is all hearsay. Unfortunately, I'm cynical and do believe the opposition did use a sniper to frame the government at the time for the purposes of gaining international sentiment. But,I still could be wrong.

[another_liberal]

67. On Wednesday, February 19th, Yanukovich signed a truce with the main protest leaders . . .

And it was cosigned by reps of the EU. Yanukovich ordered his police to not break the truce, and the main protest leaders told their supporters the same; however, several more radical protest leaders were not part of the deal, and they publicly stated they were going to continue attacks on the police. Then several policemen and protesters were shot and, eventually, police snipers were brought in to take out the gunmen.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/deadly-clashes-shatter-ukraine-truce/story-e6frg6so-1226832235351

Who, in your opinion, was more likely guilty of starting the shooting? The Ukrainian police who had been ordered to uphold the just signed truce, or the radical protesters who swore from the beginning they would continue attacking police?

Seriously, can there be any doubt?

[fascisthunter]

69. Ok... MUST READ DUers ^^^^^^

[jeff47]

103. You have to consider the source.

RT is the Russian government. The Russian government set up RT. The Russian government pays very large sums of money to keep it going.

To call their reporting on the Ukraine situation "untrustworthy" is an understatement.

[NuclearDem]

48. You're going to have to start finding a more neutral source on Ukraine than RT.

It's like trusting RFE about claims of WMDs in Iraq.

[another_liberal]

53. I calls them as I sees them."

I value Russia Today News for its alternative take on news of the day, especially when that news concerns U. S. imperialistic machinations around our World.

[NuclearDem]

56. Pretty rich to decry imperialism while defending the mouthpiece of Russia.

[another_liberal]

62. I'm not defending anyone.

I using a source to present and alternative point of view on important events of our time. You should try doing some of that yourself.

[NuclearDem]

65. So I either take RT seriously or I don't pay attention to alternative points of view?

RT is whitewashing an imperialist land grab in a neighboring country by making claims about American interference.

America did the exact same thing throughout the Cold War. I don't tolerate it when either side does it.

This isn't RT or Western propaganda. That's a nonsense false dichotomy. RT is a propaganda for an imperialist anti-LGBT regime that came to power in a stolen election.

[another_liberal]

68. Russia has her faults, and clearly some serious ones at that.

However, it was the Western powers (principally the U.S.) who manipulated the protests in Kiev to overthrow a democratically elected government and install a Western lackey one. What Russia did in the Crimea was a response to our initial interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine. We are the ones who set the bar so low that Russia could just step over it.

[NuclearDem]

70. Oh, so Russia had no choice but to invade the Crimea?

Remember kids, imperialism is justified when others do it first!

The West is wrong and Russia is wrong. But keep making excuses for that imperialist bigot.

[another_liberal]

74. Of course they had a choice whether or not to act in the Crimea.

Our earlier interference in the internal affairs of the sovereign nation of Ukraine just gave them all the legal and diplomatic cover they needed to act as they chose. I bet you dollars to doughnuts we'll never bring our overthrow of the Yanukovich government to the floor of the United Nation's General Assembly for an up or down vote. Do you know why? Because we would lose that vote to a huge majority of the World's independent nations!

[NuclearDem]

77. No, they have no legal or diplomatic cover to invade a sovereign natuon

That posed no immediate threat to them.

Again, keep excusing that imperialist bigot.

[another_liberal]

79. OK, the fact is they did not invade anything.

They reinforced their military units already stationed in Crimea under a treaty both Ukraine and Russia had signed. That is a serious interference in Ukraine's internal affairs, but it is not an "invasion." It is not, as a matter of fact, even on an equal with manipulating peaceful protests to bring about the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government. We are simply the pot calling the kettle black in that regard.

[kwassa]

82. Where is any proof of Western powers manipulating protests in Kiev?

and give us some credible sources, not a Russian propaganda source like RT.

[another_liberal]

83. There is a great deal of such evidence . . .

However, this is still my favorite piece:

[kwassa]

86. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

from the left-leaning Guardian:

a very good and very long article, and this is from somewhere in the middle of it. This reporter talks to many people there.

"

Olexiy Haran, a politics professor and a member of the Maidan's organising committee, expressed exasperation at the way the Kremlin's "fascist" trope had taken root in some western minds. "I've had liberal Harvard professors asking me about this. We are talking traditional Russian propaganda," he said.

Haran characterised the events of the tumultuous past three months as a "national liberation and anti-corruption movement". It was pro-decency, and opposed to a president who behaved "like a puppet of Russia", he said.

In a statement, Haran and other academic experts on post-Soviet Ukrainian radicalism point to the heterogeneous nature of the protest movement – a "confusing mosaic" made up of people with "different motivations, backgrounds and aims". Most of the protesters "only turned violent in response to increasing police ferocity and the radicalisation of Yanukovych's regime," they write.

The experts complain of a "dangerous tendency" to misinterpret what happened. Exaggerated reports of ultra-nationalist actors ultimately serve "Russian imperialism", they suggest.

[another_liberal]

89. Think whatever you please . . .

The fact still remains that I have both the background and the training to assure you that when it comes to assessing me, you are completely out of your depth.

[kwassa]

90. LOL!

If you have such background and training, you have hidden it in an extraordinary fashion.

You got nuttin'.

[another_liberal]

91. "Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand."

See you around, kwassa.

[kwassa]

92. So, will you put me on ignore because you can't handle my arguments?

A lame Cool Hand Luke reference is pretty meaningless.

[another_liberal]

93. There is no such thing as a "lame" Cool Hand Luke reference . . .

I said I'd "see you around."

I'll see you around, kwassa.

[kwassa]

95. Oh, sure there is. Like I said, you got nuttin', and now you run away.

Doesn't RT pay you for after-hours work?

[another_liberal]

97. Later, kwassa.

Later means later.

[kwassa]

99. "Later" is a way of avoiding an argument you are losing.

In my humble opinion.

[another_liberal]

107. Perhaps it is in some cases . . .

In this case it was a way of going to bed and getting some sleep.

[another_liberal]

87. Here are a couple more I found in minutes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/ukraine-protests_n_4743902.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-road-to-moscow-goes-through-kiev-how-the-protests-in-ukraine-transformed-into-a-coup-that-could-target-russia/5370479

As well as a truly prescient blog post from late January:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2014/01/western-manipulated-violence-in-ukraine.html

[kwassa]

94. Two of these three links are worthless; the third doesn't support you.

Global Research is a woo woo conspiratorial site. Stephen Lendman is a guy with an opinion. So what?

Huffington Post doesn't say anything about Western manipulation.

[another_liberal]

96. Do you reject the live recording of Victoria Nuland's comments as well?

And, yes, the Huffington Post piece does suggest U. S. manipulation. If you aren't satisfied, find more yourself.

Personally, I don't think there is even a question about it at all.

[kwassa]

98. I frankly think that you have no standards in journalism.

Vladmir Putin puts it well

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/13/in-case-you-werent-clear-on-russia-todays-relationship-to-moscow-putin-clears-it-up/

I’d like to emphasize something of the key importance. We never expected this to be a news agency or a channel which would defend the position of the Russian political line. We wanted to bring an absolutely independent news channel to the news arena.

Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign.

also many critique the objectivity of RT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

Since its foundation in 2005, RT has been widely accused as being a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. In an interview with US government-owned external broadcaster Voice of America, the Russian-Israeli blogger Anton Nosik (ru) said the creation of Russia Today "smacks of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns."[136] A representative of Reporters Without Borders called the newly announced network "another step of the state to control information."[137] In 2009, Luke Harding in The Guardian described Russia Today's advertising campaign in the United Kingdom as an "ambitious attempt to create a new post-Soviet global propaganda empire."[32]

In 2010, The Independent reported that RT journalists had revealed that coverage of sensitive issues in Russia is allowed, but direct criticism of Vladimir Putin or then President Dmitry Medvedev is not.[22] Masha Karp wrote in Standpoint magazine that contemporary Russian issues "such as the suppression of free speech and peaceful demonstrations, or the economic inefficiency and corrupt judiciary, are either ignored or their significance played down".[138] In 2008 Stephen Heyman wrote in The New York Times that in RT's Russia, "corruption is not quite a scourge but a symptom of a developing economy."[20]

James Kirchick in The New Republic accused the network of "often virulent anti-Americanism, worshipful portrayal of Russian leaders."[139] Ed Lucas wrote in The Economist (quoted in Al Jazeera) that the core of RT was "anti-Westernism."[140] Julia Ioffe wrote "Often, it seemed that Russia Today was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate newsgathering."[30] Shaun Walker wrote in The Independent that RT "has made a name for itself as a strident critic of US policy."[141] Allesandra Stanley in The New York Times wrote that RT is "like the Voice of America, only with more money and a zesty anti-American slant."[46] David Weigel writes that RT goes further than merely creating distrust of the United States government, to saying, in effect: "You can trust the Russians more than you can trust those bastards."[28]

[another_liberal]

105. I am not going to debate Russia Today's "Standards" . . .

Though I do contend that they are at least as trustworthy and respectable as most of their Western counterparts. Others may disagree, but I find them a valuable source. I have studied foreign affairs in considerable detail, and, perhaps, some others on DU have not. Such study can open one to a broader perspective of reference.

No one is required to accept all of my sources. I expect readers to be discriminating according to their own tastes, and those who are troubled by alternate points of view may find RT News too different and challenging to accept. I do hope they will at least read the sources I quote and try to understand the point I'm trying to make.

[kwassa]

109. Quoting a Russian propaganda source as news item in the OP is ludicrous.

I am not troubled by alternate points of view. I am troubled by blatant lies.

RT is lying about the Ukraine, for Putin's political purpose.

[Sissyk]

57. Then be prepared to have conversation

Only about your source if you continue to use RT.

[another_liberal]

59. Is that a threat?

I don't think threats are allowed on DU, are they?

[Sissyk]

61. Lol!!

[another_liberal]

63. Well, as long as it's just a joke . . .

And not the threat it clearly sounded like.

[Sissyk]

64. How could that possibly be a threat???

What can I possibly do from tennesee to you in whatever place you are in to keep you from typing on this message board?

And, no it wasn't a joke. Look how many times posters brought up RT instead of discussing what you intended to discuss.

No, you're being silly, right?

[another_liberal]

71. So you are threatening to disrupt my OP if you don't like my source . . .

Not because of the substance of my OP, but just because you don't care for the source I employ.

That is most certainly a direct threat to my rights as a DU member. If you follow through with that threat, I will take steps to see that the administrators are informed.

[NuclearDem]

72. Oh knock it off. People are going to discuss your source because it's relevant.

Your "rights" aren't under attack. This is a discussion board; you don't get to choose what gets discussed so long as it's within the ToS.

[another_liberal]

75. Exactly.

Threats are expressly forbidden by those terms of service.

[Sissyk]

73. Lol!!

Please! Yes, please! Go ahead and alert admin to old badassed me.

[another_liberal]

76. If you disrupt an OP I post as you have threatened you would . . .

I reserve the prerogative to do just that.

[Sissyk]

81. Can you show me in the

DUer Rights Guide where it says I can't disrupt your OPs?

I'm sure lots of good DUers need to see it, also.

[another_liberal]

106. It is your threat to intentionally and premeditatedly disrupt I am talking about.

That is quite different.

[maddezmom]

85. A threat?

Are you being serious???

[cthulu2016]

78. RT shit is awesome

[another_liberal]

80. Nice of you to stop by . . .

Just window shopping?

[gerogie2]

104. This is government propaganda

This stuff should be banned from this site.

[soundsgreat]

111. government propaganda or conspiracy theory? nt

[soundsgreat]

110. Now guess which person leads the Ukranian government's investigation of the shootings?

Andrej Parubiy