>BP Plc Chief Executive Officer Bernard Looney...

Surname checks out.

My conscience trumps your rights.

It's the attitude of all conservatives, in all places and at all times:

>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

- Frank Wilhoit

She likes being the in-group, wants to control it even.

> Except I haven't seen any examples of that.

How did Russian troops disguised as independent mercenaries manage to invade and conquer Crimea in 2014 with hardly any resistance from the local defence forces?

If they'd believed the invaders were independent, they'd have fought. No army surrenders their country to nameless bandits.

That they didn't fight is evidence they knew the invaders were backed by Moscow. Which is evidence that Moscow suborned them before the invasion began.

>You even acknowledge that people might have been sympathetic - making it less nefarious.

Nothing about an unprovoked military invasion that murders civilians is "less nefarious". It is fully nefarious.

>How could Russia do that, exactly, in a newly independent country?

The same way they do in every other country: inserting agents, propaganda, misinformation, sabotaging (and sometimes murdering) people who disagree with them.

All that is especially easy in a newly independent country, where political structures and norms are not well established.

Doubly so when many people speak Russian and/or are sympathetic.

Crimea being newly independent made them more vulnerable to outside influences, not less.

>Coups aren't exactly political.

Parliamentary votes aren't coups.

>The referendum was on the fate of the USSR.

That was the January 1991 referendum, which was never implemented because the USSR imploded before its reorganization (including Crimea) could be completed. That implosion mooted the results of the January 1991 Crimea referendum - you can't enforce something that no longer exists.

>They weren't given a choice between being part of independent Ukraine and part of independent Russia.

In December 1991, Ukraine held a referendum and Ukrainians voted for independence. This essentially marked the end of the Soviet Union. 54% of Crimean voters opted for Ukrainian independence, with the turnout in Crimea placed at 60%. Thus Ukraine became independent, and Crimea remained part of the newly independent Ukraine, retaining its autonomous status.

>Since then there is a history of Crimea trying to get some form of independence or autonomy from Ukraine, and Ukraine suppressing it. Even before Putin became Russian president.

True, but only half the story. Russia was working just as hard to suppress pro-Ukraine sentiment. You forgot that part.

The only free expression of Crimean desires that's still actionable was that December 1991 referendum. Russia and Ukraine both sought to leverage the results in their favor. Ukraine won that battle by political means (the pro-Ukraine parliament ousted the pro-Russian president).

Instead of continuing the battle by political means, Russia reverted to raw force - taking Crimea whether Crimeans wanted it or not. Nobody in Crimea ever voted for that.

>What if many Crimeans don't want to be part of Ukraine?

Like every province, Crimeans voted on that exact question in a fair and open election. A majority voted to be part of Ukraine.

Russia reneged on its sworn obligation to respect the borders that resulted from that election. Instead of honoring the borders chosen by the people of Crimea (Donbas, etc) they launched a war of aggression to steal the land for themselves.

When a schoolyard bully reoratedly beats up on a smaller, weaker kid and refuses to stop, standing by because "neutrality" is just moral cowardice.

Thanks for clarifying and sorry if I misread your comment.

>The magnitude of induced violence is not necessarily correlated to the magnitude of the difference...

Completely agree.

>... may even be inversely correlated.

A fascinating concept that, if true, speaks to a psychological rather than a doctrinal basis for such violence.

Both statements were appropriate, true and important to say.

They were said in the more respectful order, acknowledging and mourning the horror before protesting the unwarranted attack on themselves.

Adults are responsible for controlling their emotions in public. Only children get to emote without considering the consequences. Your "argument" absolves the attackers of their responsibility as adult members of a society. If we do that, there is no society.

What are the differences between Protestant and Catholic, other than believing who should be in charge?

To an outsider, the differences between one sect and another often appear insignificant. To those within the sects, their beliefs are essential to their identity. Any threat to a person's essential beliefs may result in extreme violence.

Those differences led to the 30 Years War, which killed 5-8 million Central Europeans back when the only weapon was a short-range musket with a bayonet. The Troubles in Ireland came from the same cause.

By design, monotheistic religions create in-groups and out-groups. If my religion is the one and only truth, then your religion - by definition - is false. Since both cannot be true, the very existence of one threatens the other's most basic beliefs, and vice-versa. These intractable disagreements may lead to extreme and prolonged violence, each side fighting until it is literally exhausted of all people and resources.

For a brilliant take on the foolish seriousness behind religious wars, read 'Gulliver's Travels', Book I. Are you a Big Endian, or a Little Endian. Your life depends on your answer.