Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Part Deux

[Vassenor]

No they don't.

So if an ex-CIA agent working for the FSB, traveled to another country to recruit another CIA agent to work for the FSB, you wouldn't want the CIA to eliminate him, if bringing him in wasn't possible? You'd go "oh hey there, by all means, please continue to backstab us and spy on us old chap", is that it?

I don't see anyone calling for Snowden's head.

[Shofercia]

So if an ex-CIA agent working for the FSB, traveled to another country to recruit another CIA agent to work for the FSB, you wouldn't want the CIA to eliminate him, if bringing him in wasn't possible? You'd go "oh hey there, by all means, please continue to backstab us and spy on us old chap", is that it?

I don't see anyone calling for Snowden's head.

First, Snowden made the information public. He didn't deliver the information to just one agency. He made it public. Furthermore, the information contained systematic abuses, not specific names of targets to eliminate. That's known as whistle blowing. Second, there were plenty of people calling for Snowden's head. Third, Snowden isn't actively recruiting anyone.

[West Aurelia]

Russia accuses the Netherlands of withholding information in the MH17 probe. Lavrov does have a point here:

“Members of the investigation conducted by the Dutch security service met with us recently. We asked questions — for instance, why they made the announcement about the elements of the Buk missile only in August, when they'd found them several months ago. We also asked them to show the fragments to us — they refused to do so,” Lavrov said.

The US is deploying F-22s to Europe to deter Russia.

[Estruia]

Russia accuses the Netherlands of withholding information in the MH17 probe. Lavrov does have a point here:

“Members of the investigation conducted by the Dutch security service met with us recently. We asked questions — for instance, why they made the announcement about the elements of the Buk missile only in August, when they'd found them several months ago. We also asked them to show the fragments to us — they refused to do so,” Lavrov said.

They probably refused to show the Russians the fragments because they were already back in the Netherlands; safely out of the reach of Russian saboteurs.

[Geilinor]

I don't see anyone calling for Snowden's head.

First, Snowden made the information public. He didn't deliver the information to just one agency. He made it public. Furthermore, the information contained systematic abuses, not specific names of targets to eliminate. That's known as whistle blowing. Second, there were plenty of people calling for Snowden's head. Third, Snowden isn't actively recruiting anyone.

There are legal ways to blow the whistle and Snowden didn't follow them. Second, nobody was calling for his head. They wanted him to be tried. Third, how do we know that he hasn't shared information with the Russian government while in Russia?

[United Marxist Nations]

First, Snowden made the information public. He didn't deliver the information to just one agency. He made it public. Furthermore, the information contained systematic abuses, not specific names of targets to eliminate. That's known as whistle blowing. Second, there were plenty of people calling for Snowden's head. Third, Snowden isn't actively recruiting anyone.

There are legal ways to blow the whistle and Snowden didn't follow them. Second, nobody was calling for his head. They wanted him to be tried. Third, how do we know that he hasn't shared information with the Russian government while in Russia?

Such as?

[Kinckobanina and Wherpvelna]

First, Snowden made the information public. He didn't deliver the information to just one agency. He made it public. Furthermore, the information contained systematic abuses, not specific names of targets to eliminate. That's known as whistle blowing. Second, there were plenty of people calling for Snowden's head. Third, Snowden isn't actively recruiting anyone.

There are legal ways to blow the whistle and Snowden didn't follow them. Second, nobody was calling for his head. They wanted him to be tried. Third, how do we know that he hasn't shared information with the Russian government while in Russia?

People didnt know that Litvinenko was working for the British until later after his death, Shof will inevitably deny the obvious, but we all know what's going on with snowden.

[Geilinor]

There are legal ways to blow the whistle and Snowden didn't follow them. Second, nobody was calling for his head. They wanted him to be tried. Third, how do we know that he hasn't shared information with the Russian government while in Russia?

Such as?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

Whistleblowers[1] may file complaints that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

[Conserative Morality]

Such as?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

Whistleblowers[1] may file complaints that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

To be fair, the 'protection' offered is really shitty and not all that effective against complaints regarding systemic government misconduct.

[United Marxist Nations]

Such as?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

Whistleblowers[1] may file complaints that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

And what do these complaints do? If it isn't getting the information out there or the information is hushed up, then their complaint doesn't do anything.

[United Marxist Nations]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

To be fair, the 'protection' offered is really shitty and not all that effective against complaints regarding systemic government misconduct.

Yeah, wiki says only 2% of cases end favorably for the whistleblower (though I could be misinterpreting).

[Wormold]

No they don't.

So if an ex-CIA agent working for the FSB, traveled to another country to recruit another CIA agent to work for the FSB, you wouldn't want the CIA to eliminate him, if bringing him in wasn't possible? You'd go "oh hey there, by all means, please continue to backstab us and spy on us old chap", is that it?

And the Litvinenko case was just like that, of course. It bears all the hallmarks of an intelligence operation. If you're going to recruit a former intelligence officer as an agent you want someone discrete to make the initial contact, and who could be more discrete than a former intelligence officer working for one of the loudest exiled oligarchs and author of two books accusing the Russian government of orchestrating terror attacks on its own citizens?

Then there's the location - obviously, for sensitive work like recruiting an agent you'd need to do it somewhere private where the wrong people won't see you together or some stranger might overhear your conversation, like a sushi restaurant or a crowded hotel bar.

Also, if you're trying to get someone to turn against their country, encourage them to bring along a lifelong friend to the meetings so they can join in on the discussion. They will have a good understanding of your intended recruitment target and can provide useful advice in what must be difficult decision. A problem shared is a problem halved!

With this level of security - meeting in open, public spaces with a known dissident and bringing along a pal for company - you can be certain that no one will cotton on to your intentions. NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW!

[Geilinor]

To be fair, the 'protection' offered is really shitty and not all that effective against complaints regarding systemic government misconduct.

Yeah, wiki says only 2% of cases end favorably for the whistleblower (though I could be misinterpreting).

I think that he should have stayed in the country, but let's end the threadjack.

[West Aurelia]

The Dutch Safety Board will publish its report on October 13.

[Weltschmerzen]

The Dutch Safety Board will publish its report on October 13.

Honestly, I am interested in what they will report.

[Shofercia]

Russia accuses the Netherlands of withholding information in the MH17 probe. Lavrov does have a point here:

“Members of the investigation conducted by the Dutch security service met with us recently. We asked questions — for instance, why they made the announcement about the elements of the Buk missile only in August, when they'd found them several months ago. We also asked them to show the fragments to us — they refused to do so,” Lavrov said.

They probably refused to show the Russians the fragments because they were already back in the Netherlands; safely out of the reach of Russian saboteurs.

First, Snowden made the information public. He didn't deliver the information to just one agency. He made it public. Furthermore, the information contained systematic abuses, not specific names of targets to eliminate. That's known as whistle blowing. Second, there were plenty of people calling for Snowden's head. Third, Snowden isn't actively recruiting anyone.

There are legal ways to blow the whistle and Snowden didn't follow them. Second, nobody was calling for his head. They wanted him to be tried. Third, how do we know that he hasn't shared information with the Russian government while in Russia?

I'm not saying that he didn't commit a criminal act. I am saying that there's a massive difference between what Snowden did, (illegal whistleblowing, to prevent future harm,) and backstabbing your country. And I don't know if he passed on information or not, but I do know that Obama wanted him before he even reached Russia. As for not calling for his head: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-spies ... den-2014-1

And some spooks aren't hiding their anger anymore, as seen by several candid quotes from a new report by Benny Johnson of Buzzfeed: "In a world where I would not be restricted from killing an American, I personally would go and kill him myself," a current NSA analyst told BuzzFeed. "A lot of people share this sentiment." A former U.S. Special Forces officer told Johnson that he "would love to put a bullet in his head," adding the assertion that Snowden "is single handedly the greatest traitor in American history." Buzzfeed notes that nobody expects the U.S. government to act on such fantasies. Nevertheless, the hypothetical assassination of the NSA-trained hacker is quite detailed...

There are legal ways to blow the whistle and Snowden didn't follow them. Second, nobody was calling for his head. They wanted him to be tried. Third, how do we know that he hasn't shared information with the Russian government while in Russia?

People didnt know that Litvinenko was working for the British until later after his death, Shof will inevitably deny the obvious, but we all know what's going on with snowden.

Oh my, I didn't realize that the only way to betray the KGB was to work for the brits, apparently you made a discovery. Congratulations! So I guess if you're a French/German/American double agent, you're totally not betraying the KGB, cause you're not working for the Brits. Seems to be the insanity that you're implying.

However, even if you somehow managed to miss that most basic of analysis, there's another, extremely easy way to comprehend it, and that's by simply following the storyline: Lugovoi allegedly killed Litvenenko with Polonium. If Lugovoi didn't know that Litvenenko was a traitor, why bring Polonium to the meeting? Are you following the insane idea that every KGB agent carries Polonium? Or wait, perhaps it's because Lugovoi bought Polonium at a local flower shop?

[Shofercia]

Russia Today schools Forbes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxYs0qeHX_Q

Long story short, a Forbes blogger picked up an article in "Business Life" that claimed that Russia suffered 5,200 casualties in Ukraine. So RT wanted to find out what Business Life is, but there wasn't a single reachable phone number, or address. So they finally got in touch, via e-mail. Turns out that Business Life's article was posted on February, and wasn't edited until August 23rd. The edit "miraculously" happened to contain the 5,200 casualty information. And yes, this couldn've been discovered via a simple Google cache search. Ouch! Of course it's RT, so they do have a crazy guy at the end, telling us not to believe everything that we see online. But, excluding that last bit, RT got the facts right by fact checking. I don't understand why they didn't just say "it was over 9,000!"

[Quintanilla]

Russia Today schools Forbes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxYs0qeHX_Q

Long story short, a Forbes blogger picked up an article in "Business Life" that claimed that Russia suffered 5,200 casualties in Ukraine. So RT wanted to find out what Business Life is, but there wasn't a single reachable phone number, or address. So they finally got in touch, via e-mail. Turns out that Business Life's article was posted on February, and wasn't edited until August 23rd. The edit "miraculously" happened to contain the 5,200 casualty information. And yes, this couldn've been discovered via a simple Google cache search. Ouch! Of course it's RT, so they do have a crazy guy at the end, telling us not to believe everything that we see online. But, excluding that last bit, RT got the facts right by fact checking. I don't understand why they didn't just say "it was over 9,000!"

"...a Forbes blogger..." The first person that came to my mind was that sad sack of human refuse, Paul Roderick Gregory. Of course, my suspicions were correct. All those years of peddling bullshit finally came back around on him.

Wonderful news.

[New Werpland]

Russia Today schools Forbes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxYs0qeHX_Q

Long story short, a Forbes blogger picked up an article in "Business Life" that claimed that Russia suffered 5,200 casualties in Ukraine. So RT wanted to find out what Business Life is, but there wasn't a single reachable phone number, or address. So they finally got in touch, via e-mail. Turns out that Business Life's article was posted on February, and wasn't edited until August 23rd. The edit "miraculously" happened to contain the 5,200 casualty information. And yes, this couldn've been discovered via a simple Google cache search. Ouch! Of course it's RT, so they do have a crazy guy at the end, telling us not to believe everything that we see online. But, excluding that last bit, RT got the facts right by fact checking. I don't understand why they didn't just say "it was over 9,000!"

I'm sure the people RT get their headlines from are trustworthy!

[United Marxist Nations]

Russia Today schools Forbes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxYs0qeHX_Q

Long story short, a Forbes blogger picked up an article in "Business Life" that claimed that Russia suffered 5,200 casualties in Ukraine. So RT wanted to find out what Business Life is, but there wasn't a single reachable phone number, or address. So they finally got in touch, via e-mail. Turns out that Business Life's article was posted on February, and wasn't edited until August 23rd. The edit "miraculously" happened to contain the 5,200 casualty information. And yes, this couldn've been discovered via a simple Google cache search. Ouch! Of course it's RT, so they do have a crazy guy at the end, telling us not to believe everything that we see online. But, excluding that last bit, RT got the facts right by fact checking. I don't understand why they didn't just say "it was over 9,000!"

Oh boy, I'm sure the people RT get their headlines from are trustworthy!

Forbes is generally regarded as a decent source, RT is not, so RT kicking their ass is kind of significant.

[New Werpland]

Oh boy, I'm sure the people RT get their headlines from are trustworthy!

Forbes is generally regarded as a decent source, RT is not, so RT kicking their ass is kind of significant.

It's also kind of hypocritical.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Oh boy, I'm sure the people RT get their headlines from are trustworthy!

Forbes is generally regarded as a decent source, RT is not, so RT kicking their ass is kind of significant.

If one believes RT actually did so.
Frankly, considering RTs history, I have doubts about events happening as they claim them to have. What with their history of reporting events contrary to how they happen.

[Estruia]

Oh boy, I'm sure the people RT get their headlines from are trustworthy!

Forbes is generally regarded as a decent source, RT is not, so RT kicking their ass is kind of significant.

Forbes bloggers are in fact, contrary to popular belief, not a decent source. I'm not entirely sure why anyone is surprised that a blogger was put in their place by an entire News Agency.

[The balkens]

Forbes is generally regarded as a decent source, RT is not, so RT kicking their ass is kind of significant.

Forbes bloggers are in fact, contrary to popular belief, not a decent source. I'm not entirely sure why anyone is surprised that a blogger was put in their place by an entire News Agency.

Only in Russia is a "significant" event consists of a Government news agency putting down some blogger.

[United Marxist Nations]

Forbes bloggers are in fact, contrary to popular belief, not a decent source. I'm not entirely sure why anyone is surprised that a blogger was put in their place by an entire News Agency.

Only in Russia is a "significant" event consists of a Government news agency putting down some blogger.

Why are you using what is essentially an Imperial-Russian flag? Or am I mistaken?