44 replies to this topic

[Manoka]

Show me video proof of separatists rolling while in combat with the Ukrainian army, or is this more irrelevance you're spoon feeding?

Eh, I'll get around to it. 

 

I typed up the whole OP and everything 

[the rebel]

Show me video proof of separatists rolling while in combat with the Ukrainian army, or is this more irrelevance you're spoon feeding?

Eh, I'll get around to it. 

 

I typed up the whole OP and everything 

 

Normally when you make claims, you back it up with evidence... I could rant on about my knowledge of the SAS till the cows come home, but adding it without evidence to x/y or z event would mean nothing and that is what you have ranting on about a special forces without context or evidence to the titled topic.

 

Ever thought those highly trained rebels are Serbian mercenaries who fight in different countries, who unlike most mercenaries they mainly fight for the thrill rather than the cash and have been doing it for over a decade.

[Manoka]

 

Show me video proof of separatists rolling while in combat with the Ukrainian army, or is this more irrelevance you're spoon feeding?

Eh, I'll get around to it. 

 

I typed up the whole OP and everything 

 

Normally when you make claims, you back it up with evidence... I could rant on about my knowledge of the SAS till the cows come home, but adding it without evidence to x/y or z event would mean nothing and that is what you have ranting on about a special forces without context or evidence to the titled topic.

 

Ever thought those highly trained rebels are Serbian mercenaries who fight in different countries, who unlike most mercenaries they mainly fight for the thrill rather than the cash and have been doing it for over a decade.

I'm sure some are Chechnyan mercenaries, but as for it it's in my OP, but I'd have to dig around a little to cite this specific thing. 

 

This is just a random post on invicta, so I'll get back to it. xP

 

 

Special Forces mercenaries more or less don't exist unless they're ex-special forces, and most mercenaries are ex-military in general. 

 

Mercenaries only make money because they essentially use other people to pay for the training necessary to have calibers of that level, I.E. steal the or a government's training. Because training and equipping your soldier to that extreme wastes money, mercenaries aren't going to be elite because it would take expending more money than you make to be as good, and thus that's not going to happen. "The perfect robbery" falls into the same category, because by the time you've got that money to set up the perfect heist, why go rob a bank? You've got ex-special forces, but when they're in their 40's, 20+ years of hardcore war is not going to be good on their bodies or minds, and thus they're going to begin to falter. Serbian's also don't act like this; and if they did, who's paying them? It would need to be, idk, a country with 10's of billions of dollars to spare, like Russia.

Edited by Manoka, 04 August 2014 - 07:58 PM.

[the rebel]

Do some research on the Serbs you will find most don't do it for the money, then if you dig a little deeper you will find Serb mercenaries were in Crimea which one even said to a journalist he wasn't doing it for the money.

I know it goes against your propaganda.

[Manoka]

Do some research on the Serbs you will find most don't do it for the money, then if you dig a little deeper you will find Serb mercenaries were in Crimea which one even said to a journalist he wasn't doing it for the money.

I know it goes against your propaganda.

I've never denied it's possible for them to be in Crimea, I've said that they wouldn't be spetsnaz, or probably even special forces. 

 

They don't do it for money; well, they couldn't exist without the support of a country behind them, so, uh... that's just economics. Money or not they'd go bankrupt unless they expended more money than they could receive as payment. 

Edited by Manoka, 05 August 2014 - 01:35 PM.

[the rebel]

Do some research on the Serbs you will find most don't do it for the money, then if you dig a little deeper you will find Serb mercenaries were in Crimea which one even said to a journalist he wasn't doing it for the money.

I know it goes against your propaganda.

I've never denied it's possible for them to be in Crimea, I've said that they wouldn't be spetsnaz, or probably even special forces. 

 

They don't do it for money; well, they couldn't exist without the support of a country behind them, so, uh... that's just economics. Money or not they'd go bankrupt unless they expended more money than they could receive as payment. 

 

You have spent the whole topic and in other topics talking about how they are nothing but Russian special forces and "explaining" why.

[Manoka]

 

Do some research on the Serbs you will find most don't do it for the money, then if you dig a little deeper you will find Serb mercenaries were in Crimea which one even said to a journalist he wasn't doing it for the money.

I know it goes against your propaganda.

I've never denied it's possible for them to be in Crimea, I've said that they wouldn't be spetsnaz, or probably even special forces. 

 

They don't do it for money; well, they couldn't exist without the support of a country behind them, so, uh... that's just economics. Money or not they'd go bankrupt unless they expended more money than they could receive as payment. 

 

You have spent the whole topic and in other topics talking about how they are nothing but Russian special forces and "explaining" why.

I never said nothing but Russian special forces, I said even in the OP that it's likely predominately Rebel forces, augmented by many Special Forces, who likely are involved in training and advisory support, which Special Forces often do. 

 

It was the weapons and specific tactics that made be sure it was Russians that were doing it. The Serbians were not like the Russian special forces for many reasons but, there could be small numbers there, as they were reported to be working for Gadaffi and others. Still, someone would need to be paying them, at least to sustain their operations there, so yeah. 

 

 

You are really bad at jumping to erroneous conclusions. 

Edited by Manoka, 05 August 2014 - 03:52 PM.

[the rebel]

You go from:
 

While there is little doubt in my mind that many of these rebels are rebels, many more are likely legitimate Russian troops. And not just Russian troops, but elite forces, that is Special Forces. The resemblances are too uncanny and too close to be anything but a planned attack. Some of the below are specific to Russians, some are specific to professional military's in general, but a large part of the information is in the details.

 
To:
 

I never said nothing but Russian special forces, I said even in the OP that it's likely predominately Rebel forces.

 
Then:

You are really bad at jumping to erroneous conclusions.

 
There is nothing erroneous from my conclusion, your argument has been wildly flip flopping, that you're hilariously contridicting yourself.

[Manoka]

You go from:
 

While there is little doubt in my mind that many of these rebels are rebels, many more are likely legitimate Russian troops. And not just Russian troops, but elite forces, that is Special Forces. The resemblances are too uncanny and too close to be anything but a planned attack. Some of the below are specific to Russians, some are specific to professional military's in general, but a large part of the information is in the details.

 
To:
 

>

I never said nothing but Russian special forces, I said even in the OP that it's likely predominately Rebel forces.

 
Then:

You are really bad at jumping to erroneous conclusions.

 
There is nothing erroneous from my conclusion, your argument has been wildly flip flopping, that you're hilariously contridicting yourself.

I'm sorry what?

 

Did you read that?

 

 

"While there is little doubt in my mind that many of these rebels are rebels"

 

How does that at all lead you to think that I didn't believe these rebels are rebels; I literally even said that the rebels, were rebels, directly, as if it wasn't enough. 

 

 

You said "You have spent the whole topic and in other topics talking about how they are nothing but Russian special forces"

 

When very, very clearly I have said they are rebels. I'm not sure how clear I can be than that? Special Forces often provide advisory roles, so it wouldn't even make sense for them to be special forces; it may have even been possible that they were organized by Russia specifically and are in far greater size because of it, but not once did I say there was nothing but Russian special forces there. 

 

 

How would you at all get that?

 

Reading comprehension is not that hard. 

[CeltSoldierKev]

You go from:
 

While there is little doubt in my mind that many of these rebels are rebels, many more are likely legitimate Russian troops. And not just Russian troops, but elite forces, that is Special Forces. The resemblances are too uncanny and too close to be anything but a planned attack. Some of the below are specific to Russians, some are specific to professional military's in general, but a large part of the information is in the details.

 
To:
 

>
I never said nothing but Russian special forces, I said even in the OP that it's likely predominately Rebel forces.

 
Then:

You are really bad at jumping to erroneous conclusions.

 
There is nothing erroneous from my conclusion, your argument has been wildly flip flopping, that you're hilariously contridicting yourself.

I'm sorry what?
 
Did you read that?
 
 
"While there is little doubt in my mind that many of these rebels are rebels"
 
How does that at all lead you to think that I didn't believe these rebels are rebels; I literally even said that the rebels, were rebels, directly, as if it wasn't enough. 
 
 
You said "You have spent the whole topic and in other topics talking about how they are nothing but Russian special forces"
 
When very, very clearly I have said they are rebels. I'm not sure how clear I can be than that? Special Forces often provide advisory roles, so it wouldn't even make sense for them to be special forces; it may have even been possible that they were organized by Russia specifically and are in far greater size because of it, but not once did I say there was nothing but Russian special forces there. 
 
 
How would you at all get that?
 
Reading comprehension is not that hard. 

Ah, but you said that "many more were likely legitimate Russian troops." When you say things like "many more" that is a comparison. Meaning you feel that the majority are Russian troops. If you can't even comprehend your own words, how can we possibly follow you on your "connect the imaginary dots" arguments?

[Manoka]

 

You go from:
 

While there is little doubt in my mind that many of these rebels are rebels, many more are likely legitimate Russian troops. And not just Russian troops, but elite forces, that is Special Forces. The resemblances are too uncanny and too close to be anything but a planned attack. Some of the below are specific to Russians, some are specific to professional military's in general, but a large part of the information is in the details.

 
To:
 

ime="1407275553">

>
I never said nothing but Russian special forces, I said even in the OP that it's likely predominately Rebel forc

es.

 
Then:

ime="1407275553">

You are really bad at jumping to erroneous

conclusions.

 
There is nothing erroneous from my conclusion, your argument has been wildly flip flopping, that you're hilariously contridicting yourself.

I'm sorry what?
 
Did you read that?
 
 
"While there is little doubt in my mind that many of these rebels are rebels"
 
How does that at all lead you to think that I didn't believe these rebels are rebels; I literally even said that the rebels, were rebels, directly, as if it wasn't enough. 
 
 
You said "You have spent the whole topic and in other topics talking about how they are nothing but Russian special forces"
 
When very, very clearly I have said they are rebels. I'm not sure how clear I can be than that? Special Forces often provide advisory roles, so it wouldn't even make sense for them to be special forces; it may have even been possible that they were organized by Russia specifically and are in far greater size because of it, but not once did I say there was nothing but Russian special forces there. 
 
 
How would you at all get that?
 
Reading comprehension is not that hard. 

 

Ah, but you said that "many more were likely legitimate Russian troops." When you say things like "many more" that is a comparison. Meaning you feel that the majority are Russian troops. If you can't even comprehend your own words, how can we possibly follow you on your "connect the imaginary dots" arguments?

 

Uh... many more doesn't mean majority. xP

 

If I said "there are many more opportunities available to you" would you assume that I meant meant the majority of opportunities are available to you, or just many? It's just a turn of phrase. 

 

 

Which by itself is a weird thing to say. xP

[the rebel]

In the world of Manoka more than actually means less than.

[Manoka]

In the world of Manoka more than actually means less than.

"Many more" is just a phrase that means several more, essentially. 

 

It's sort of a way of saying "But still, a sizable amount are Russian special forces". 

 

 

Even if that wasn't enough, I specified earlier in the thread that I didn't think they were pure Russian forces. 

 

You specifically said I thought it was "nothing but Special Forces". 

 

 

So like. 

 

Idk wut to say at this point. 

Edited by Manoka, 06 August 2014 - 04:01 PM.

[Manoka]

There's some footage of the combat but people are getting killed in them. 

 

I don't really know how to just show that but really Rebel, you're just going to sake it's fake or made up or inconclusive, or that it doesn't matter Russians are in there, because it will be good they are, or what have you. So it doesn't matter. 

 

 

I'm not going to dig through videos of people dying for it. 

 

Here you go, though, if you're interested in that sort of thing. I referenced it in my OP but fuck that shit. 

 

 

There's plenty of displays of the tactics they're using which are unique to the Spetsnaz. 

 

And they're identical in appearance to the Russians in Crimea. Does it really take a genius to put 2 and 2 together? The likelihood this is all a coincidence is less than that of it being on purpose, considering all the extremely unlikely similarities. We're talking new generation weapons, new generation camouflage, reserved entirely for their elite units, and seen in Crimea. 

 

 

And it's not just me saying this. 

 

NATO's offical position on the subject is that Russia is largely to blame for the Aggression. The U.S. and the Ukraine are showing special forces in the region. I've cited many sources, but I'll show them again. Essentially, virtually everyone but Russia is saying Special Forces are in Ukraine as well as Russian regulars, and Russia later admitted to them being in Crimea when they officially denied them, as well as lied about their true purpose until later on, meaning they're probably lying about their forces in there now, and once they achieve their objectives, if they do, or get far enough down the road, will eventually admit it. You'd have to be purposefully blind not to see it. 

 

 

http://www.nato.int/...lectedLocale=en

 

http://www.voanews.c...ns/1948325.html

 

http://www.theguardi...eastern-ukraine

 

http://www.thedailyb...de-ukraine.html

 

 

 

 

 

Disturbing Video Footage of Fighting

http://www.liveleak.... combat footage

Edited by Manoka, 06 August 2014 - 04:01 PM.

[the rebel]

In the world of Manoka more than actually means less than.

"Many more" is just a phrase that means several more, essentially. 
 
It's sort of a way of saying "But still, a sizable amount are Russian special forces". 
 
 
Even if that wasn't enough, I specified earlier in the thread that I didn't think they were pure Russian forces. 
 
You specifically said I thought it was "nothing than" Special Forces. 
 
 
So like. 
 
Idk wut to say at this point. 

 
For those without a hard grasp of English, you said:
 

While there is little doubt in my mind that many of these rebels are rebels, many more are likely legitimate Russian troops. And not just Russian troops, but elite forces, that is Special Forces. The resemblances are too uncanny and too close to be anything but a planned attack. Some of the below are specific to Russians, some are specific to professional military's in general, but a large part of the information is in the details.

 

Lets break it down to bite sized pieces:

 

You state that there is little doubt in your mind that many of these rebels are rebels..... So far so good

Then say many more are Russian troops and not just Russian troops but special forces..... That means you're saying the majority are Russian special forces

You then spend the whole of the OP ranting about Russian special forces.....

 

Then you do a complete 360 and change fundamentals of your argument by contridicting what you said.

 

You're spoon feeding propaganda so much that you're forgetting what you have said and when called out on it and the evidence is there in black and white and shown it, you deny it.

 

Which is hilarious.

 

If you can't stick to an argument then you don't have a solid argument.

[Manoka]

 

In the world of Manoka more than actually means less than.

"Many more" is just a phrase that means several more, essentially. 
 
It's sort of a way of saying "But still, a sizable amount are Russian special forces". 
 
 
Even if that wasn't enough, I specified earlier in the thread that I didn't think they were pure Russian forces. 
 
You specifically said I thought it was "nothing than" Special Forces. 
 
 
So like. 
 
Idk wut to say at this point. 

 
For those without a hard grasp of English, you said:
 

>>>>>>>>While there is little doubt in my mind that many of these rebels are rebels, many more are likely legitimate Russian troops. And not just Russian troops, but elite forces, that is Special Forces. The resemblances are too uncanny and too close to be anything but a planned attack. Some of the below are specific to Russians, some are specific to professional military's in general, but a large part of the information is in the details.

 

Lets break it down to bite sized pieces:

 

You state that there is little doubt in your mind that many of these rebels are rebels..... So far so good

Then say many more are Russian troops and not just Russian troops but special forces..... That means you're saying the majority are Russian special forces

You then spend the whole of the OP ranting about Russian special forces.....

 

Then you do a complete 360 and change fundamentals of your argument by contridicting what you said.

 

You're spoon feeding propaganda so much that you're forgetting what you have said and when called out on it and the evidence is there in black and white and shown it, you deny it.

 

Which is hilarious.

 

If you can't stick to an argument then you don't have a solid argument.

 

I've never changed my argument at all. And even if I did, it wouldn't invalidate everything else I said, or the facts that exist outside this conversation; nice try, though. Saying "many more" does not mean majority. Saying "there are many more fish in the sea" as a reference to finding another girlfriend or whatever ,does not mean there are a majority of fish in the sea. That would be nonsensical. Nor would "there are many more opportunities" or "many more sausages". In fact it doesn't reference a number or percentage at all, since it's indefinite. 

 

I explicitly stated in my OP as well that the vast majority were likely rebels. 

 

 

And later went on about it. 

 

 

 

"Maybe not present in large amounts, but they are probably arming and training the rebels, giving them battle strategies and up to date satellite information so as to know how to coordinate their attacks. "

 

"I've never denied it's possible for them to be in Crimea, I've said that they wouldn't be spetsnaz, or probably even special forces.    

 

 

 

Then you said-

"You have spent the whole topic and in other topics talking about how they are nothing but Russian special forces and "explaining" why"

 

When that clearly wasn't the case. 

 

 

Now you're saying I said majority, which wasn't your original argument, even when if you substituted majority in there as a word it would become nonsensical in terms of proper grammar and syntax. 

 

You're the only one back tracking and trying to suggest I'm wrong based on nothing more than semantics, which haven't been supported by anything I said in this thread, or by the rest of my OP. You're just grasping at straws at this point. 

Edited by Manoka, 06 August 2014 - 05:03 PM.

[the rebel]

Learn English before trying to lecture me on shit while being wrong.

If you say one side is made up of rebels and Russian special forces, then that equals two different types of people.

Equal numbers of them would mean its 50% and 50%. When you say one has many more that's means the percentage of rebels would drop and the percentage of Russian special forces would rise.

So Russian special forces would be the majority.

I don't know why you keep trying to deny your error with lies when its obvious and makes your integrity be held in question.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The Donetsk rebels are ethnic Russians, but (mostly) Ukrainian citizens.  I had a patient from Donetsk, a boy named Kostya who had lost a leg after stepping on the electrified third rail of a train.  Then at the Ukrainian hospital he received a transfusion of HIV-tainted blood.  He and his mother spoke Russian and considered themselves Russians even though their citizenship was Ukrainian.  I hope he is okay.

 

[Manoka]

Learn English before trying to lecture me on shit while being wrong.

If you say one side is made up of rebels and Russian special forces, then that equals two different types of people.

Equal numbers of them would mean its 50% and 50%. When you say one has many more that's means the percentage of rebels would drop and the percentage of Russian special forces would rise.

So Russian special forces would be the majority.

I don't know why you keep trying to deny your error with lies when its obvious and makes your integrity be held in question.

"If you say one side is made up of rebels and Russian special forces, then that equals two different types of people.

Equal numbers of them would mean its 50% and 50%. "

 

 

I'm sorry, but where are you getting this?

 

Nowhere in the english language does it say both sides have to be equal, even if there are two sides, which I never said. O.o

 

 

Being made of rebels and special forces doesn't mean it has to be 50-50. 

 

Special forces embedded in the Rebels to provide reconnaissance, training, weapons and equipment, logistical support, satellite data and areal reconnaissance, and so on would mean it would be like 10% special forces anyways. O.o

 

 

And Russian regulars, special forces, and rebels would be 33/33/33, I guess? O.o

 

Which is what I actually said was over there. xP

Edited by Manoka, 07 August 2014 - 02:52 PM.

[the rebel]

"While there is little doubt in my mind that many of these rebels are rebels, many more are likely legitimate Russian troops. And not just Russian troops, but elite forces, that is Special Forces."

 

Two people go apple picking, one picks 50 apples and the other picks 100 apples, out of the total amount of apples the other persons has many more apples which is also seen as the majority of the apples.

 

When you learn children level maths, you won't make statements like "many more" then say "I never said majority" then claim everyone is wrong but you, when in fact it is just you.

 

Get an education higher than kindergarden level and you will be respected more in debates.