Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

rumpil, remember the 'fact' that the US caused the chemical attack in Syria? (some) of the media you read is flawed and biased. So everything you 'quote' has to be fact checked.

I said I was sure that it had not been president of Syria but somebody else. I blamed US cos it was very probably that they did it. They organize most of the problems in last 20 years. All the world can see that. But... the fact that it was not president who was guilty remain, what was changed is just author. And, as very few people here, I can fix my opinion if I find out that my previous statement was wrong.

(btw, that info was not in any news, it was my personal estimate :-) )

But nobody can said that US is there not involved. US is making there big troubles for tens and tens years and the sad fact that Saudi want just abuse aggressive US policy and its govermnet by starting a war cos chem. attack arranged against president is very sad. But US policy for last tens years is so clear that I understand that even some Saudies want abuse US for own purpose. So US are involved too, just not directly.

You really want to know all the differences? I don't think the forum can handle so much text :/

hehehe... no, just two simple difference. 1. Power (sides). 2.Money

Economical and strategical reasons Yugoslavia is better as group of small countries begging for EU help. Stong Yugoslavia would be problem for EU, not only for economics reason but they dont hate russian so much as west :-).

If Ukraine would join EU, everything would be ok. If Crimea and maybe some part of eastern Ukraine will join Russia, everything is bad. So It is just about sides.

The situation is different that in Kosovo it took negotiations and they failed. In Crimea was area just occupied without any negotiations or demands.

Red, you are not true :-) !

1. .... it took negotiations and they failed. ...
no, they get ultimate what they had to do otherwise nato will start attack. I can not call this "negotiations".

2. In Crimea was area just occupied
Again, not true. Russian armies is there and was there and can be there even in numbers up to 25k cos they have contract. They send there more armies just as contract says - to protect their positions. So no occupation I suppose.

Again not true jasiom. Germans had never any contract about army positions there with Czech republic.
But the fact that after German occupation of Poland started, Czech people was not so polite on germans living there is true too :-). Who would be surprised, but WWII started by attacking poland, now we dont have WWIII, yet :-)

2. In Crimea was area just occupied
Again, not true. Russian armies is there and was there and can be there even in numbers up to 25k cos they have contract. They send there more armies just as contract says - to protect their positions. So no occupation I suppose.

Dude, please stop bullshitting everybody. There are enough reports of Russian soldiers occupying UKRAINE airports, military bases and so on. I highy doubt that Ukraine has a contract with Russia for taking over Ukraine property.

Ukrainian soldier shot and killed at Crimea base

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukrainian-soldier-shot-and-killed-at-crimea-base-1.2577236

Is killing Ukraine soldiers also part of there contract Rumpil ? How lang can u hold on to your nonsense ?

Did you read that contract ? I not, it is not public contract but some says (and yes this is not the fact, just smb says.... :-) ) russia army there has some right to protect area in case of security problems.

Russia is not attacking or destroying that airports, they are without damage so they just stop way how enemies can get there. This I can really call defense actives cos there are really security problems in Ukraine now.

I highy doubt that Ukraine has a contract with Russia for taking over Ukraine property.
I agree that such a stupid clause there is not. But where is the point :-) ? Nobody take that airport, they just make security defense steps so enemy paid forces or even worse terrorist has bigger problems to get there. So I can say they get whole area secure so no deads are there. You would be maybe more happy if hundreds and hundreds people were already killed, am I right ?

Tell me detail of that incident...who start attack...how and so... I will wait so I can make reaction, ok ?


Oh...you dont know ??? But it doesnt matter, you are able still make statement.

Who start attack ?

Maybe the Russians who are occupying Ukraine ?

enemey paid forced and terrorist ? So that's the excuse you are fooling youself with ? I really pity you dude.

You are just as worse as the people with only pro-USA/West propaganda except you make propaganda for Russia and without a second thinking you believe everything you wanna believe.

Attack is when one side start destroying and killing the other side, like NATO or USA are making every year.

Make important ways secure to stop terrorist or other enemies start there local war is just "defense action" :-)

or you tell me, what is attack by you ?

I am against every kind of violence and wars but you can call me dude :-).
It is sad that if there is not a war and hundreds of dead you are not satisfied and call my opinion as propaganda.

Attack is when you violate a country's sovereignity and occupy territory that is not your own land.

What Nato did was wrong, just like Russian current action is also WRONG. If you can't see that both are wrong for there own reason then you are just making propaganda of the other side.

So NATO attack Serbia :-) ? Kosovo is the prove or what :-D ?

I think that all incident on Ukraine is just about how west tried to get Ukraine on west side (no matter about russian inhabitants there) and they failed. They broke the line when Russia can not sleep any more...that is all.

But you are talking that TV bullshits about occupation and so. TURN IT OFF! :-D

What Gohf is saying is that NATO was wrong bombing Yugoslavia and Russia was wrong invading Crimea. Seriously, you cannot possibly deny the Russian presence in Crimea is severely stronger than it used to be, and it is no longer restricted to the military bases they have there for their Black See Fleet.

Another interesting question however is: is it occupation if a big majority of the people want those (Russian) soldiers there?

Nato bombed Serbia indeed. That was wrong.

Just like Russian's current actions are wrong.

"west tried to get ukraine on west side" ? if Ukraine wants to join EU what is the problem ? If they wanna join I dont see any problem. Nobody forces Ukraine to join EU.

TV Bullshit ? Yes ofcourse it's "bullshit" becasause it doenst suit your propaganda way of thinking :D.