Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Research concludes the Maidan Square snipers were anti-government militants. [View all]
When, in early 2014, unarmed demonstrators and even government riot police in Maidan Square were being shot and killed by snipers, Western sources, without bothering to investigate, immediately accepted that the murders had to have been ordered by President Yanukovych's crowd control officials. This was despite undisputed video of snipers firing from windows high in several buildings occupied by anti-government protesters. The West was in no mood to accommodate suggestions anyone else might be at fault. The Ukrainian government was corrupt and evil, the logic seemed to go, so of course they had to be guilty! Now, however, unbiased examination of the evidence has concluded that was just not the case.
Fire and smoke shroud Maidan Square, February, 2014 (Sputnik)
Study Proves Maidan Snipers Were Western-Backed Oppositions False Flag
A study of the February 20, 2014 Snipers massacre in Kiev, where scores of protesters were killed by shots fired from surrounding buildings, has proved that it was carried out by Western-backed opposition groups. The research found that the Berkut special police force, which was loyal to the Ukrainian government, was not responsible, contrary to the narrative which was created by the post-Maidan coup government in Kiev, and consequently accepted by Western governments and media.
Ivan Katchanovski, a teacher of political science at the University of Ottawa, studied eyewitness reports, estimates of ballistic trajectories, 30 gigabytes of security forces radio intercepts, 5,000 photos and 1,500 videos and broadcast recordings of the protesters deaths.
This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power, wrote Katchanovski in his study, called The Snipers Massacre on the Maidan in Ukraine.
It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas.
(snip)
Read more at: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160103/1032633643/study-maidan-deaths-false-flag.html
115 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Research concludes the Maidan Square snipers were anti-government militants. [View all]
another_liberal
Jan 2016
OP
You could have found a better researched "article" from counterpunch couldn't you?
snooper2
Jan 2016
#75
You illustrate the point I made earlier about "attack the messenger" responses.
leveymg
Jan 2016
#20
The academic who led this investigation is employed by the University of Ottawa . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#31
The difference here that most western news sources aren't wholly created, owned and operated
GGJohn
Jan 2016
#43
Which is not the same as Sputnik News or RT, both of whom were created by the Kremlin
GGJohn
Jan 2016
#52
The study proved what its author has been preaching for months. How convenient.
pampango
Jan 2016
#28
This otherwise unimpeachable investigation refutes what you choose to believe . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#29
Because I have yet to see anything remotely like actual criticism of this study . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#42
Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association
leveymg
Jan 2016
#99
It does not 'refute' what I believe; it 'proves' what the author chooses to believe.
pampango
Jan 2016
#37
Just an example why you should be careful when a russian news-source quotes someone:
DetlefK
Jan 2016
#30
Not-self published. Presented at a major conference, and posted by The Netherlands Post Online.
leveymg
Jan 2016
#100
It's the most thorough study of its kind that I have seen. If there's something better, please link
leveymg
Jan 2016
#101
Both versions are 79 pages (excepting the face page) and have 343 footnotes. How do they differ?
leveymg
Jan 2016
#110
I see. I had read the 2014-versions the 2015-version mentions on its title-page.
DetlefK
Jan 2016
#113
You are free to do what you want. But, I think you have fundamentally misread it.
leveymg
Jan 2016
#115
Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association
leveymg
Jan 2016
#94
I am not about to get into an argument about "peer review" and such . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#104
Limiting data and analysis selection to publication which inherently validate your own conclusions
LanternWaste
Jan 2016
#109
