Ukraine Thread

[CrossLOPER]

Which means they are not written in a similar manner; that's the crucial difference I am getting at. Whether lazy journalism or a dislike for yoga, it's poorly written. The BBC article contains context.

It is EXACTLY the same. It cites several Catholic critics who state that practicing yoga is spiritually impure. It mentions that similar events have been noted in the past. It also includes a dissenting opinion by a practitioner. The only thing that the RT article does not do is mention Tai-chi or Reiki, which are tangents that the BBC author decided to include.

None of this matters because you simply wanted to point out how ridiculous RT is with this article, and I countered with an example of a BBC article that covered the same information. You are just arguing minutiae.

[Viking]

It is EXACTLY the same. It cites several Catholic critics who state that practicing yoga is spiritually impure. It mentions that similar events have been noted in the past. It also includes a dissenting opinion by a practitioner. The only thing that the RT article does not do is mention Tai-chi or Reiki, which are tangents that the BBC author decided to include.

No. This is what RT's article allows for yoga's defence:

One Derry yoga instructor, however, defended the practice, telling the Belfast Telegraph that teaching yoga for 15 years has not stopped her from being a “good, practicing Catholic.” Evelyn Donnelly said that her yoga students come to classes to "learn good posture and breathing to help them with tension in their bodies and to help calm a busy mind.”

"In all the time I have been teaching, not one person has ever expressed an interest going deeper into the spiritual elements of yoga," she added.

this is BBC's article:

Yoga teacher Norah Graham, who has held yoga classes in the area for about 20 years, said she was both offended and "a bit surprised" by the comments.

'Over the top'
She said she had spoken to Fr O'Baoill about the issue before and he had put an "embargo" on the advertising of yoga classes, so she was aware that he did not approve.

However, the yoga teacher said the strength of Fr O'Baoill's latest comments had come as a surprise and said she felt his remarks were "over the top".

Ms Graham, who is also a retired secondary school teacher, said she was not a particularly religious person.

She said the handful of people who regularly attended her yoga lessons had "their own beliefs" and religion played no part in her classes.

Ms Graham added that the practice of yoga in Western countries was now "largely divorced" from religious associations.

The parts negative to yoga are of similar sizes.

I could go on with other differences, but that's pointless. My issues with RT does not stem from articles like that, but issues like the one I mentioned in my previous post.

[CrossLOPER]

My issues with RT does not stem from articles like that, but issues like the one I mentioned in my previous post.

This is what I found on MO: http://rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/224567...lochsenreiter/
Can you tell me specifically what you find distasteful, or even disagreeable, without referring to the article you posted?

The parts negative to yoga are of similar sizes.

Yoga teacher Norah Graham, who has held yoga classes in the area for about 20 years, said she was both offended and "a bit surprised" by the comments.

Ms Graham, who is also a retired secondary school teacher, said she was not a particularly religious person.She said the handful of people who regularly attended her yoga lessons had "their own beliefs" and religion played no part in her classes. She added that the practice of yoga in Western countries was now "largely divorced" from religious associations.

That is the article edited down to the main ideas. The BBC article has 86 words, where the RT article has 85.

[Gilrandir]

This is what I found on MO: http://rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/224567...lochsenreiter/

This is what I found on Kirby's employers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuerst!

Immediately after its first issue the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution announced that the content of the magazine was against the "unending de-nazification efforts", advocating revisionist theories on national boundaries, and the terrorist activities of the "South Tirolean Freedom Fighters" in the 1960s.

[GenosseGeneral]

Really interesting, althoug unfortunately only available in Russian: interview with a Russian tanker wounded in Ukraine, recorded in a hospital in Donetsk.
http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/67490.html
The soldier actually tells a lot of interesting details.
1. All Russian soldiers serving in Ukraine are professionals who have signed a contract. Conscripts were withdrawn from his unit before deployment. But even the professional soldiers could have objected to be deployed on "excercises in the Rostov oblast'", which is from where the Russian military aid trickles into Ukraine.
2. The soldiers were aware of where they would be deployed, although it was never stated explicitly and they were not totally sure until they actually crossed the border. The order to do so was given after a prolonged time which was indeed spent on excercises. However, at least the interviewed soldier saw it as the right thing to do and nobody had to be coerced into carrying out that order. <What he describes seems to be a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude between the rank-and-file soldiers and their superiors.
3. His battailon was deployed as one unit. So not only as a limited number of advisors or in specialist roles (e.g. manning air defence systems), but as a regular unit employing regular military tactics, even engaging in tank-on-tank combat.
4. His unit was some kind of a reserve. Even after moving into Ukraine, they were kept off the frontline. Only when the "regular" separatists saw themselves unable to capture a place, his company received the order to engage. However, he says that there was hardly any coordination with the cossacks fighting for the DNR, which is why he was very afraid accidentally shooting his own allies. His overall impression of the "normal" rebels seems to be that of a bunch of rather unprofessional weekend warriors.

[Don Corleone]

Fascinating, thank-you for the quick translation. GenosseGeneral.

Playing devil's advocate for a second, how can one be sure he's not a plant? What sort of credentials did the individual offer?

I'm just finding it difficult to believe that this guy voluntarily engaged in black-ops work, backing rebels in a neighboring country, then proudly proclaiming his activities upon being taken into custody at a hospital? What ever happened to "name, rank and serial number"?

Sounds a little too good to be true, if you know what I mean.

[rvg]

Fascinating, thank-you for the quick translation. GenosseGeneral.

Playing devil's advocate for a second, how can one be sure he's not a plant? What sort of credentials did the individual offer?

If you suspect that the guy is a plant, then the burden of proof is on you. Could he be a plant? Sure. Maybe he is. Heck, maybe you are. Do I have any evidence to support my theory of you being Putin's stooge? Nope. But you might be.

[Viking]

Fascinating, thank-you for the quick translation. GenosseGeneral.

Playing devil's advocate for a second, how can one be sure he's not a plant? What sort of credentials did the individual offer?

I'm just finding it difficult to believe that this guy voluntarily engaged in black-ops work, backing rebels in a neighboring country, then proudly proclaiming his activities upon being taken into custody at a hospital? What ever happened to "name, rank and serial number"?

Sounds a little too good to be true, if you know what I mean.

He is not in Ukrainian custody, he was interviewed by the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta in a hospital in insurgent-held Donetsk. Here is another translated (but still incomplete) version.

A couple of weeks ago, the Russian newspaper Kommersant published a story about how Russian regular troops were involved in the capture of Debaltseve, translated here:

The logic of military operations in recent months is quite simple: only experienced troops are being deployed to perform combat missions on behalf of either the self-proclaimed republics, or “certain regions of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions” (as is written in the Minsk agreement). They complete a mission and pull back, and local insurgents move into the seized towns, the commandants’ offices and checkpoints - ready to meet the journalists and tell them of their past lives as “miners.”

(original Russian article here)

This is what I found on MO: http://rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/224567...lochsenreiter/
Can you tell me specifically what you find distasteful, or even disagreeable, without referring to the article you posted?

This is beside the point. Using controversial people like they were normal sources makes the channel controversial. Another guy, which they used as a stringer in Ukraine, is this guy, the Brit Graham Phillips; here seen in an insurgent uniform at one of their firing ranges:




Clearly taking the embedding part seriously.. (and that's the tip of the iceberg regarding him)

There is not one thing in isolation that makes RT problematic (at best), it's the sum of all the weird stuff they do.

That is the article edited down to the main ideas. The BBC article has 86 words, where the RT article has 85.

Not continuing this line of debate.

[GenosseGeneral]

I'm just finding it difficult to believe that this guy voluntarily engaged in black-ops work, backing rebels in a neighboring country, then proudly proclaiming his activities upon being taken into custody at a hospital? What ever happened to "name, rank and serial number"?

Sounds a little too good to be true, if you know what I mean.

Well, they give his name, his unit, the number of the base where he is stationed and the number of his military ID.
For him, it is not really black-ops work - first of all, he is convinced of fighting for the right side (you know, the whole "the Kyiv fashists kill children there!" thing). Also, to him it was a 'grey' mission at best - they only covered the licence plates and callsigns of their tanks, just like in Crimea, where the intervention of Russian troops ws acknowledged publicly later on.
It is still somewhat naive that he is not afraid of reprisals and also somewhat strange, that a reporter of Novaya Gazeta was not shot at the place. Usually separatists talk only to LifeNews, Pervyj Kanal and all the other propaganda media.

[Gilrandir]

That's what I've been saying for quite a time. I will allow myself to put in my two cents.

1. All Russian soldiers serving in Ukraine are professionals who have signed a contract. Conscripts were withdrawn from his unit before deployment.

I heard reports (from Russian conscripts) that in some units they were forced to sign a contract thus becoming professionals with further redeployment you know where.

But even the professional soldiers could have objected to be deployed on "excercises in the Rostov oblast'"

Sometimes they are given a choice - get deployed or get fired - which evidently makes it hard to refuse, at least for many of them.

However, at least the interviewed soldier saw it as the right thing to do and nobody had to be coerced into carrying out that order.

It is no wonder with all the brainwashing Russians are subject to. As for coercion, the dissident are sifted out before sending a unit to Rostov region.

As for the source, Novaya Gazeta is considered to be the last (more or less) independent (of the Kremlin) and unbiased Russian newspaper. The last TV station enjoying the same reputation is Dozhd. The last "free" radio station is Ekho Moskvy.