Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pipy 4335 days ago
> 1. You use bloggers as references while shrugging at serious references.

These have back-references to official sources that you try to ignore.

> 2. A single minute's check on Wikipedia showed that your claims about the May vote is garbage.

No, it didn't, and I have already explained why in previous posts. The words about May polls come from respected sociologist and author of The Guardian.

The same goes to your reference to Wikipedia page about Crimean referendum, in particular, the data about previous polling [1]. Previous polls were taken before the overthrowing of Yanukovich and before new Kiev Government has issued statement about revocation of Russian language law.

About Syria:

Here are the words of lead investigator, Ake Sellstrom from official UN press-conference, pinpointed to minutes and seconds: [2]

Congressman Alan Grayson on NYT: [3]

As about your links to HRW, first one [4] is about different attack, that was not used as a pretext to possible Western bombardments, so I would rather not discuss it to prevent "topic creep". The second one [5] is contradicted by the conclusions of UN investigators, because they report that rocket bust have had much smaller range: 2 km [6] instead of "3.8 to 9.8" reported by HRW article [5], which makes HRW narrative fall apart.

So, this means, that in Syria, just like with Iraq in 2003, the West has used at best dubious evidence as a political pretext for possible war. This, and previous history with accidents like the one in The Gulf of Tonkin [7], we have every right to be skeptical about western claims that are not supported by strong evidence.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_201...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CFn9pWNKeI#t=39m10s

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/on-syria-vote-trus...

[4] http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/13/syria-strong-evidence-gov...

[5] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-c...

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CFn9pWNKeI#t=16m10s

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Distor...

1 comments

>>No, it didn't, and I have already explained why in previous posts. The words about May polls come from respected sociologist and author of The Guardian.

So prove your conspiracy theory that shows Wikipedia, BBC et al wrong and the votes really were 96+%(!).

Post exact links and quotes that show the May poll was correct.

Sorry, it already took me too much time to watch UN press-conference in it's entirety to provide proper timed youtube links (which you've ignored) and pin-point other faults in your arguments that you also seem to ignore.
So Wikipedia, BBC and most of the world (which didn't acknowledge the election) are disproved by a Youtube video you have linked to somewhere...?

Well, that is almost as good a source as when you linked to a blogger. :-)

(So if I link to the criticism on Wikipedia of the Crimean election, you "disprove" that with another Youtube link? :-) )

[Thanks for another good laugh.]

Please stop being personally rude in your arguments on Hacker News.
It is easy to promise that for people which don't "argue" by dismissing Wikipedia, BBC etc -- because they have posted a youtube link somewhere where they interpret what someone said as different.

That is arguably ruder.

[Edit: pipy changed opinion because of arguments in another place when he wrote crazy stuff. He is not a troll, just upset. I stand corrected.]