Thread: Yushchenko Poisoning

Originally Posted by Scorpio

This thread seems to wander far offtopic.

Going back to "Yuscenko poisoning" story: isn't it funny, how calm everything is *now*, after he became president? During the election, he made lots of blatant claims against his political opponents. If I remember right, he *promised* to give some evidence for them afterwards?
Now, it seems he want everybody in the world just to forget about this dirty "poisoning" story. No investigation, no convicts, no evidence of his alleged accusations.
Anybody surprised? I'm not.

I would advice you to wait for the inquiry to finish.

Second I think he has many important matters on his minds.

Originally Posted by Mordan

I would advice you to wait for the inquiry to finish.

Second I think he has many important matters on his minds.

Surely, he has a lot of important matters on his mind. How to cover all the lies he made during the election campain, for example.

Everybody still interested in this story, *must* read this article:

http://www.anti-orange.com.ua/article/n ... ns/65/7439

All Yuscenko's and yuscenkovites' lies, exagerrations and insinuations taken together are shocking impression.
After reading this, I have 90% confidence, what Yuscenko wasn't poisoned at all.

Come on, you can't read an article from a site called anti-orange and not think it is so biased that it makes Enron's accounts look like the Pope's wallet!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Come on, you can't read an article from a site called anti-orange and not think it is so biased that it makes Enron's accounts look like the Pope's wallet!

Scorpio wants Yushchenko to be the bad guy in this story... simple as that.

he lives in denial of reality

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by Mordan

I would advice you to wait for the inquiry to finish.

Second I think he has many important matters on his minds.

Surely, he has a lot of important matters on his mind. How to cover all the lies he made during the election campain, for example.

Everybody still interested in this story, *must* read this article:

http://www.anti-orange.com.ua/article/n ... ns/65/7439

All Yuscenko's and yuscenkovites' lies, exagerrations and insinuations taken together are shocking impression.
After reading this, I have 90% confidence, what Yuscenko wasn't poisoned at all.

You are reading propaganda....

I won't go into this debate again on why I'm not reading propaganda and you are. Just open your eyes

Hark at Mr Moscow Times.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Hark at Mr Moscow Times.

For the record I also read french newspapers and The Economist. It is not propaganda, it is FREE press. We don't have a State bullying us in our back.
However I agree we do have ideological tendencies. But those biases are because of the editors, not because the State wants it.

Originally Posted by Mordan

Originally Posted by scotcher

We don't have a State bullying us in our back.

Hm... anti-orange.com.ua isn't governmental site, zadonbass.org isn't government site... Your beloved orangists f@#$ed up half of Ukraine, and there're millions who stand against orange plague. If these people have their sites, it's called democracy and free press. If you praise orangists blindly and anything written against them is "enemy propaganda" it's called brainwashing.

Originally Posted by Mordan

Originally Posted by scotcher

Hark at Mr Moscow Times.

For the record I also read french newspapers and The Economist. It is not propaganda, it is FREE press. We don't have a State bullying us in our back.
However I agree we do have ideological tendencies. But those biases are because of the editors, not because the State wants it.

So, when "your" side does it it's legitimate editorial, but when the "other" side does it it's sinister state propaganda?

You really aren't very bright, are you?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Come on, you can't read an article from a site called anti-orange and not think it is so biased that it makes Enron's accounts look like the Pope's wallet!

Originally Posted by Mordan

Scorpio wants Yushchenko to be the bad guy in this story... simple as that.
he lives in denial of reality

Yes, yes. This is exactly what I expected.
When I give you some facts, completely disproving the official version of this alleged "poisoning", I'm "denying the reality", not less.

(Yes, of course, this is anti-Yuscenko site. I know. You don't expect to find truth on any site controlled by his supporters, do you?)

Please, cut short this ranting, and just answer these simple questions:

1. What did group of american doctors from University of Virginia, headed by Dr. Gregory Saathoff (I hope, I spelled his name right), did with this case? Why it was so much secrecy about it? Do the american working for american government look as "indepenent experts" for you?
2. Why doctor Lothar Wicke -- a *real* medical expert, who actually performed analisis -- openly rejected the "poisoning" version? Why his was forced to leave "Rudolfinerhaus" clinic immediately after he made this statement?
3. Why all these results are based only on blood analisys (which is extremely easy to fake) and not on skin biopsy, for example?
4. How Yuscenko managed to survive the poisoning, which is (according to official results) exceeds lethal dose *many times*? Is he a kind of new Rasputin, or what?
5. For this sake, what an idiot should use *dioxine* to poison anybody? If somebody has a principial ability to add poison to someone's food/drink, why he didn't use something more effective, like cyanide?
6. Finally, why, despite Yuscenko's claims what he knows who "ordered his poisoning" and etc, he still didn't provide *any* real names, or facts, or evidences?

Please, give reasonable answer to any of these questions. Than we'll see, who is denying the reality.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Come on, you can't read an article from a site called anti-orange and not think it is so biased that it makes Enron's accounts look like the Pope's wallet!

Originally Posted by Mordan

Scorpio wants Yushchenko to be the bad guy in this story... simple as that.
he lives in denial of reality

Yes, yes. This is exactly what I expected.
When I give you some facts, completely disproving the official version of this alleged "poisoning", I'm "denying the reality", not less.

(Yes, of course, this is anti-Yuscenko site. I know. You don't expect to find truth on any site controlled by his supporters, do you?)

Please, cut short this ranting, and just answer these simple questions:

1. What did group of american doctors from University of Virginia, headed by Dr. Gregory Saathoff (I hope, I spelled his name right), did with this case? Why it was so much secrecy about it? Do the american working for american government look as "indepenent experts" for you?
2. Why doctor Lothar Wicke -- a *real* medical expert, who actually performed analisis -- openly rejected the "poisoning" version? Why his was forced to leave "Rudolfinerhaus" clinic immediately after he made this statement?
3. Why all these results are based only on blood analisys (which is extremely easy to fake) and not on skin biopsy, for example?
4. How Yuscenko managed to survive the poisoning, which is (according to official results) exceeds lethal dose *many times*? Is he a kind of new Rasputin, or what?
5. For this sake, what an idiot should use *dioxine* to poison anybody? If somebody has a principial ability to add poison to someone's food/drink, why he didn't use something more effective, like cyanide?
6. Finally, why, despite Yuscenko's claims what he knows who "ordered his poisoning" and etc, he still didn't provide *any* real names, or facts, or evidences?

Please, give reasonable answer to any of these questions. Than we'll see, who is denying the reality.

1- The case was also investigated by independant doctors, so I heard. European and american ones.
2- Lothar Wicke may have received money for saying just that. or pressure or something else.
3- I thought they did both. Anyway I think by looking at his face, you can see something went wrong no?
4- Because "they" wanted to make people think it was some kind of "accident". So they used a soft poison. Another reason might also be that the poisoners sucked.
5- See above. So that it is not so obvious.
6- He "knows" but he does not have proofs obviously. His claim to know is entirely valid. And besides I think what he said was a clever political move, if that makes any sense to you?

Simple as that.

Back on reading my free press to know what happened in Kirghizstan

Mord

Dear Mordan, do you realize that all you do in your answers is to speculate. You don

Reading Mordan's crap, one can get an impression that "free press" he enjoys invents facts instead of taking them from real life. Mordan, stop reading tabloids.

He keeps telling you what he reads: The Economist.

No ideological bias or agenda there then, oh no. I mean, a Western newspaper called The Economist isn't likely to have any bias at all when covering an ugly election in a former communist European state, and it's subsequent falling out with another former communist European state, when one of the core election issues was liberalisation and westernisation of their economy.

Nope, paragons of impariality through and through.

Originally Posted by scotcher

He keeps telling you what he reads: The Economist.

You have got something against that paper don't you? Ah yea, maybe the title? Who said The Economist does not have its own opinion? Hell that's for what the Editorial is for!!!!! But you can also find another kind of articles, articles that try to depict a situation with strong and honest reporting. I have a certain level of confidence in the Economist for exposing the facts without trying to intentionally twist those fact to fit their own opinions! The Economist often acknowledges when It was proven wrong or that facts depicted in some articles were wrong.

[quote=Kamion]Dear Mordan, do you realize that all you do in your answers is to speculate. You don

No, because you don

Originally Posted by Kamion

"might be" or "I think"

Unfortunately this is the only way to phrase any answer from both sides of the issue, since the truth is still unclear. Poor Mordan battles on defending his side with help from no one.
Mordan, I am curious. Are there many who share similar beliefs as you in Belgium?

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Kamion

"might be" or "I think"

Unfortunately this is the only way to phrase any answer from both sides of the issue, since the truth is still unclear. Poor Mordan battles on defending his side with help from no one.
Mordan, I am curious. Are there many who share similar beliefs as you in Belgium?

Most people think as I do. We all have the same information. I mean we only know what have been revealed in our media, the pictures of his face were particularly shocking. However all the different medical statements are indeed confusing.

After that, it is all speculation. From our perception of authoritarian regimes, it seems very likely that the poisoning was done on the behalf of the Kutchma regime.

But of course, we are all waiting for the investigation to finish. Without proofs, nothing is set in stone. Reading propaganda on scotcher or scorpio sites does not change that fact. "No definite evidence of what really happened has been found yet."
No evidence indeed but what we see everyday on TV is the scarred face of Yushchenko. Yushchenko is quite active and his seen a lot. I'm anxious though because It seems his hands are shaking sometimes on TV. I'm concerned his nervous system is damaged.

Originally Posted by Mordan

From our perception of authoritarian regimes, it seems very likely that the poisoning was done on the behalf of the Kutchma regime.

Brilliant!

Well, from our percetion of evil empire called USA, all recent "revolutions" were organised and sponsored from there, for geopolitic purposes of empire only, that have nothing to do with democracy, human rights and other such things.

BTW, I do not read Russian newspapers at all, I read only Western ones, Guardian, Economist, WP, NYT, etc. So we read the same, we're just different in our perceptions and conclusions.