| TL;DR: I read two points. One is contradicted by multiple sources at Wikipedia, the other argues that everything pipy dislikes from USA can be ignored. I quit the discussion in disgust over wasted time. :-( >>Yes, what I argue is that the current insurgency is supported by population of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and I've provided sources for that statement (I don't bother to look up your references, since it certainly won't be from mainstream media or similar.) You are contradicted by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic#Pub... In a poll [..] in the first half of February 2014, 33.2% of polled in Donetsk Oblast believed "Ukraine and Russia must unite into a single state".[27] According to a poll [...] 66% of Donetsk residents view their future in a united Ukraine A second poll conducted 26–29 March showed that 77% of residents condemned the takeover of administrative buildings, while 16% support such actions. Furthermore, 40.8% of Donetsk citizens support rallies for Ukraine's unity, while 26.5% support rallies which are pro-Russia And so on. >> Money quote from the BBC article: "the US says it has evidence that Russia has fired artillery across the border targeting Ukrainian military positions". [Etc.] The first thing I check is contradicted by Wikipedia (that and its sources is a conspiracy too?). The second "argument" I read is "We can ignore that, USA just lies". (It is hardly just USA that claimed Assad used nerve gas. Any proofs against? Never mind, you read it in Putin's media so it must be true.) Seriously? That is what you have? I have spent too much time on this. :-( |
> (I don't bother to look up your references, since it certainly won't be from mainstream media or similar.)
Then how can you possibly have an informed opinion if you limit your sources of information to Western mainstream media?
> You are contradicted by Wikipedia.
No, I am not, because I have provided quote about May polls, not February or March ones. February ones were made before overthrow of Yanukovich (Donetsk and Luhansk regions were one of the big electoral bases for Yanukovich), and March before the fight for federalization of Ukrainian State by the people of Donetsk and Luhansk regions was completely ignored by Kiev Government.
And it is very important difference from the sociological point of view, because it was also after the Odessa Massacre and Ukrainian Forces attack on Mariupol. BTW, the author of the quote, sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko is an author of The Guardian newspaper [1]. Is he not mainstream enough for you?
Which means that you've cross-checked one source and now erroneously claim that it is not credible.
> I have spent too much time on this. :-(
I can understand you. What is my point of view is that one should trust no single party or source of information to be credible and do research for oneself. And this is the only way to be free, as in Freedom.
> Any proofs against?
Food for thought:
"Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013" by Richard Lloyd, Former UN Weapons Inspector [2]
"Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything" (has number of first-party sources). [3]
"UN Investigator Undercuts NYT on Syria" by Robert Parry, former Newsweek and AP reporter [4]:
The lead author of the UN report on the Aug. 21 incident has contradicted the much-touted “vectoring” claims of a New York Times front-page story and Human Rights Watch, which has been pushing for a U.S. military intervention in Syria.
The UN inspectors have voiced uncertainty about who carried out the attack. At the press conference, Sellstrom admitted, “I don’t have information that would stand in court.” He also told Wall Street Journal writer Joe Lauria that both sides in the conflict had the “opportunity” and the “capability” to carry out chemical weapons attacks.
Etc. Wish you good luck!
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/profile/volodymyr-ishchenko
[2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006...
[3] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/classified-intelligen...
[4] http://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/23/un-investigator-undercu...