Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 easysauce wrote:
more stuff for the tin foil hat wearers who still keep crying out that the CIA and FBI are not actively engaged in supporting this

https://news.yahoo.com/cia-fbi-agents-advising-ukraine-government-report-101508429.html

Where has anyone made a definite statement that the FBI or the CIA aren't involved? Because posting posts aimed at no one is probably spam.

Both sides in this have legitimate grievances, there is a strong right wing anti-russian streak in western parts of Ukraine, but at the same time and the previous administration was massively corrupt and had lost the right, and ability, to govern.

However to me the "proof in the pudding" so to speak is on the ground. The western protestors took the the streets and in some cases violently clashed with government forces, and do admittedly have some radical nationalist elements amongst them, but didn't have sterile-uniformed men (in otherwise post soviet issue Russian issue fatigues) with foreign equipment (e.g. while Ukraine has AK74's, the AK74M with its black furniture and folding stock are post-soviet breakup Russian issue, spontaneous self defense forces aren't going to just find them) popping up establishing checkpoints and taking over Ukrainian military bases. They didn't imprison/detain foreigners and journalists (at least as far as I'm aware of, though they did admittedly hold and brutalize police officers they captured), and they didn't have people like Vyacheslav Ponomarev coming up with different stories every day as to why people were being held (or that they weren't being held at all when they were) or telling journalists that they were 'watching" them and would throw them out for "telling lies". They didn't try to hammer through referendums with day's or weeks worth of time with statistically laughable 93% approval rates to secede.

The pro-western/pro-Kiev elements aren't innocent by any means, they have their problems, but it's hard to see the pro-russian groups as anything but puppets for territorial expansion of the Russian Federation now that it doesn't control Kiev, despite some legitimate grievances. Coupled with the increasingly draconian media laws within Russia of the past few months (things like forcing bloggers with X number of hits per day to register with the state, restrictions on language in movies and music, and now making it illegal to "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two") it makes the entire situation highly disconcerting.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Jihadin doesn't seem to be past that though, which is what I'm arguing against.

My point was that both sides are doing a lot of things that they're technically not allowed to do.

I'm not, recommended reading?

I clarifying for gentleman Jellyfish there Walrus. I'm guilty of skimming through pages to

Jihadin doesn't seem to be past that though, which is what I'm arguing against

Like I said I'm clarifying for Jellyfish. I'm glad I am not the only one skimming through pages

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
My point was that both sides are doing a lot of things that they're technically not allowed to do.

I'm pretty sure providing intelligence assistance to a friendly, recognized government is something the west is allowed to do.

 Seaward wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
My point was that both sides are doing a lot of things that they're technically not allowed to do.

I'm pretty sure providing intelligence assistance to a friendly, recognized government is something the west is allowed to do.

Please go back and read my previous comments again, because not once did I say that the West is not allowed to do that.

Since you're apparently too lazy to read carefully, here is my comment once again for your reference. Please note how I did nto mention the West once when remarking on things that the various sides are not allowed to do.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


I think we're long past the point of what people are allowed and are not allowed to do.

Were the Kiev protesters allowed to violently overthrow an elected government?
Were the gunmen and snipers who allegedly targeted people on both sides allowed to do what they did?
Was the new Kiev government allowed to appoint members of armed, extremist Neo Nazi parties to key government positions?
Was Russia allowed to use its troops already stationed in Crimea to take over?
Is Crimea allowed to unilaterally announce its seceding from Ukraine?
Is Russia allowed to hold a snap referendum then annex Crimea?
Were the pro-Kiev groups allowed to burn to death dozens of pro-Russia demonstrators?
Is the currently unelected Kiev government allowed to label a substantial number of its citizens "Terrorists" and send in the army to kill them?
Is Kiev allowed to cut off the drinking water for millions of Crimeans, who it maintains are still Ukrainian citizens forced against their will to join Russia?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Both sides in this have legitimate grievances, there is a strong right wing anti-russian streak in western parts of Ukraine, but at the same time and the previous administration was massively corrupt and had lost the right, and ability, to govern.

However to me the "proof in the pudding" so to speak is on the ground. The western protestors took the the streets and in some cases violently clashed with government forces, and do admittedly have some radical nationalist elements amongst them, but didn't have sterile-uniformed men (in otherwise post soviet issue Russian issue fatigues) with foreign equipment (e.g. while Ukraine has AK74's, the AK74M with its black furniture and folding stock are post-soviet breakup Russian issue, spontaneous self defense forces aren't going to just find them) popping up establishing checkpoints and taking over Ukrainian military bases. They didn't imprison/detain foreigners and journalists (at least as far as I'm aware of, though they did admittedly hold and brutalize police officers they captured), and they didn't have people like Vyacheslav Ponomarev coming up with different stories every day as to why people were being held (or that they weren't being held at all when they were) or telling journalists that they were 'watching" them and would throw them out for "telling lies". They didn't try to hammer through referendums with day's or weeks worth of time with statistically laughable 93% approval rates to secede.

The pro-western/pro-Kiev elements aren't innocent by any means, they have their problems, but it's hard to see the pro-russian groups as anything but puppets for territorial expansion of the Russian Federation now that it doesn't control Kiev, despite some legitimate grievances. Coupled with the increasingly draconian media laws within Russia of the past few months (things like forcing bloggers with X number of hits per day to register with the state, restrictions on language in movies and music, and now making it illegal to "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two") it makes the entire situation highly disconcerting.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter more eloquently than I've managed to put it so far. +1.

Anyone else notice the word "Insurgents" being applied to Pro Russian

 Jihadin wrote:
Anyone else notice the word "Insurgents" being applied to Pro Russian

It helps if you tell us where you see that.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/06/ukraine-says-30-pro-russian-insurgents-killed/?intcmp=latestnews

http://news.yahoo.com/34-reported-dead-mostly-insurgents-ukraine-112938926.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/05/06/thirty_prorussia_insurgents_4_troops_killed_in_fighting_in_ukraine.html

Whole slew of news organizations pretty much went off AP.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter more eloquently than I've managed to put it so far. +1.

Nice to hear I'm not alone in the view

Jihadin wrote:Anyone else notice the word "Insurgents" being applied to Pro Russian

To be fair, Insurgent as defined by Mirriam-Webster: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent", and by dictionary.com "a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws"

While the word may have unpleasant connotations, particularly with western media using such in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 13 years, it's not an inaccurate word to use, the groups in Eastern Ukraine are forcibly revolting against the civil authority, and are doing so armed.

While the word may have unpleasant connotations, particularly with western media using such in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 13 years, it's not an inaccurate word to use, the groups in Eastern Ukraine are forcibly revolting against the civil authority, and are doing so armed.

Connection is made due to western media on lumping those in Ukraine with those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet their actions do not match up with those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Anyone else notice the word "Insurgents" being applied to Pro Russian

To be fair, Insurgent as defined by Mirriam-Webster: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent", and by dictionary.com "a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws"

While the word may have unpleasant connotations, particularly with western media using such in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 13 years, it's not an inaccurate word to use, the groups in Eastern Ukraine are forcibly revolting against the civil authority, and are doing so armed.

Doesn't that definition also apply to the original protesters who overthrew the government in Kiev?

Yep.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yep.

It also applies to the Declaration of Independence...

The US was (or still is ) British insurgents.

Yeah, that too.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yep.

It also applies to the Declaration of Independence...

The US was (or still is ) British insurgents.

So all the ethnic Russians need to do is win their armed uprising against the coup imposed Kiev regime and sucessfully join with Russia. Then history will [eventually] look back on them as heroic freedom fighters?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yep.

It also applies to the Declaration of Independence...

The US was (or still is ) British insurgents.

So all the ethnic Russians need to do is win their armed uprising against the coup imposed Kiev regime and sucessfully join with Russia. Then history will [eventually] look back on them as heroic freedom fighters?

Probably. The winner writes the history and all that.

Jihadin wrote:

While the word may have unpleasant connotations, particularly with western media using such in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 13 years, it's not an inaccurate word to use, the groups in Eastern Ukraine are forcibly revolting against the civil authority, and are doing so armed.

Connection is made due to western media on lumping those in Ukraine with those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet their actions do not match up with those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

they don't need to for the word to be appropriate however. Just as when the word "rebel" is used, people get varying images from things like dude in grey uniforms in the US civil war to Luke Skywalker to African guerillas.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Anyone else notice the word "Insurgents" being applied to Pro Russian

To be fair, Insurgent as defined by Mirriam-Webster: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent", and by dictionary.com "a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws"

While the word may have unpleasant connotations, particularly with western media using such in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 13 years, it's not an inaccurate word to use, the groups in Eastern Ukraine are forcibly revolting against the civil authority, and are doing so armed.

Doesn't that definition also apply to the original protesters who overthrew the government in Kiev?

Sure.

Is it confirmed the "Insurgents" in Ukraine are foreign fighters?
The Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan I have to say is multinational. One from UK we knew 110% being he asked for a "cigarette" with accent. He rode with us in Air Conditioning
Is it confirmed in Ukraine the Insurgents are following the same tactics as the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan?
IED's?
VBIEDS?
Executions?
Suicidal bomb strapped Jihadist's?
To name a few because the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan go even darker

Till the "Insurgents" start using the same tactics as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan then IMHO they're "Rebels"

 Jihadin wrote:
Is it confirmed the "Insurgents" in Ukraine are foreign fighters?
The Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan I have to say is multinational. One from UK we knew 110% being he asked for a "cigarette" with accent. He rode with us in Air Conditioning
Is it confirmed in Ukraine the Insurgents are following the same tactics as the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan?
IED's?
VBIEDS?
Executions?
Suicidal bomb strapped Jihadist's?
To name a few because the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan go even darker

Till the "Insurgents" start using the same tactics as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan then IMHO they're "Rebels"

Until they start using rifled muskets and waving the stars and bars they aren't "Rebels" they are "Revolutionaries."

Oh, wait. Until they start using muskets and singing about macaroni they aren't "Revolutionaries" they are... wait, this is hard. Why can't we use the term insurgent again when its very definition fits so well to describe the <blank> in Ukraine?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Until they start using rifled muskets and waving the stars and bars they aren't "Rebels" they are "Revolutionaries."

Oh, wait. Until they start using muskets and singing about macaroni they aren't "Revolutionaries" they are... wait, this is hard. Why can't we use the term insurgent again when its very definition fits so well to describe the <blank> in Ukraine?

Only if you apply the same standard to both sides.

Oh, wait. Until they start using muskets and singing about macaroni they aren't "Revolutionaries" they are... wait, this is hard. Why can't we use the term insurgent again when its very definition fits so well to describe the <blank> in Ukraine?

Ukraine "Insurgents" start killing group of kids yet? If so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start planting IED's on roads? if so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start executing non combatants in public for supporting the government? if so let me know so i can hate them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start planting bombs at public social events? If so let me know so I can start hating them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start executing prisoners they captured? If so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start viewing everyone as infidels who do not share the same view point they do? If so let me know so I can start hating them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan

Have I posted anything to the contrary?

An insurgent is a rebel.

I think what Jihadin is saying, is that "insurgent", whilst it is technically correct in its use here, has extremely negative connotations. If you are going to support the use of the word when applied to the anti-Kiev crowd, why did you not do the same when the crowds in Kiev took up arms?

 Jihadin wrote:
Is it confirmed the "Insurgents" in Ukraine are foreign fighters?
The Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan I have to say is multinational. ?

Several have admitted on camera to being from Russia, IIRC they did so in one of the Vice documentaries (and certainly the one's in RF issue fatigues with AK74M's and PKP Pecheneg's are). Either way, even domestic people can be insurgents, they applied the same label to Muqtada Al-Sadr's group (which was domestic) in Iraq.

One from UK we knew 110% being he asked for a "cigarette" with accent. He rode with us in Air Conditioning
Is it confirmed in Ukraine the Insurgents are following the same tactics as the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan
IED's?
VBIEDS?
Executions?
Suicidal bomb strapped Jihadist's?
To name a few because the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan go even darker

Till the "Insurgents" start using the same tactics as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan then IMHO they're "Rebels"

None of which are necessary to call someone an "insurgent" by any definition of the word...anywhere. You're equating the word insurgent with terrorist. An insurgent is not necessarily a terrorist.

 Jihadin wrote:

Oh, wait. Until they start using muskets and singing about macaroni they aren't "Revolutionaries" they are... wait, this is hard. Why can't we use the term insurgent again when its very definition fits so well to describe the <blank> in Ukraine?

Ukraine "Insurgents" start killing group of kids yet? If so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start planting IED's on roads? if so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start executing non combatants in public for supporting the government? if so let me know so i can hate them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start planting bombs at public social events? If so let me know so I can start hating them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start executing prisoners they captured? If so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start viewing everyone as infidels who do not share the same view point they do? If so let me know so I can start hating them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan

I get that you associate "insurgent" with the use of the word insurgent related to the middle east. However, the connotations that are carried with that word doesn't make the definition of that word any less accurate. Just like when I hear rebel I might think of Johnny Rebel, but that doesn't mean that I can only use the term in relation to rebels who participated in the American Civil War.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I think what Jihadin is saying, is that "insurgent", whilst it is technically correct in its use here, has extremely negative connotations. If you are going to support the use of the word when applied to the anti-Kiev crowd, why did you not do the same when the crowds in Kiev took up arms?

I never used the word in either case. Jihadin is poo-pooing the use of the word in an article which was used correctly and he is also adding to the definition of the word by only seeing it as appropriate for foreign fighters who use particular tactics. Which is ridiculous. As ridiculous as me stating that the pro-Russian side aren't rebels because they aren't flying the stars and bars.

 -Shrike- wrote:
I think what Jihadin is saying, is that "insurgent", whilst it is technically correct in its use here, has extremely negative connotations. If you are going to support the use of the word when applied to the anti-Kiev crowd, why did you not do the same when the crowds in Kiev took up arms?

Because the Maidan protesters didn't have military hardware.

Technically the Kiev lot are (or were) rebels too. And Insurgents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I think what Jihadin is saying, is that "insurgent", whilst it is technically correct in its use here, has extremely negative connotations. If you are going to support the use of the word when applied to the anti-Kiev crowd, why did you not do the same when the crowds in Kiev took up arms?

Because the Maidan protesters didn't have military hardware.

They do now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Technically the Kiev lot are (or were) rebels too. And Insurgents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I think what Jihadin is saying, is that "insurgent", whilst it is technically correct in its use here, has extremely negative connotations. If you are going to support the use of the word when applied to the anti-Kiev crowd, why did you not do the same when the crowds in Kiev took up arms?

Because the Maidan protesters didn't have military hardware.

They do now.

True.