Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Iron_Captain, wow. I hadn't seen your posts in a couple of years, and seeing how you're posting now really made me feel pretty sad. Hope you end up doing better, dude.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
However, all targets of those assassinations fall into three categories.
1. Terrorists, usually radical islamists or Chechen separatists.
2. Traitors, people who have betrayed the Russian security agencies. Recently we saw a failed example of this in Britain.
3. Oligarchs, the people who used to hold power in Russia before the security agencies re-established control. Those who refused to work with the security agencies have been hunted down and mostly killed.

Number three there would seem to qualify him for being a "murderous criminal". Unless "not doing what you're told" is now a capital offence.

I guess you could say that. The same goes for traitors actually. Russia supposedly abolished the death penalty after all, even for treason. Also note that in Russia, these three categories are often conflated. Terrorists, separatists and oligarchs are all seen as traitors as well. The oligarchs are the ones who sold out the Russian people after all for their own personal profit.

Yeah, but even if "robbing state industry to line your own pockets" was a capital crime - and there's days where I think it should be - you yourself admitted he's only assassinating the ones that don't toe his line, so the reason for being killed isn't being a "robber baron". Otherwise Roman Abramovich wouldn't have been back in Russia recently. And I think you could put Putin himself into that category, anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the murder of journalists, it may not be the Russian government making it happen, but if there's a general feeling that having troublemakers bumped off is acceptable behaviour, then more people are going to give it a go.

Do pro-Putin journalists and so on have the same unusual pattern of un-natural deaths?

 Da Boss wrote:
Iron_Captain, wow. I hadn't seen your posts in a couple of years, and seeing how you're posting now really made me feel pretty sad. Hope you end up doing better, dude.

No need to be worried about me mate! I am doing pretty great. Way better than a few years ago.
What is it about my posts that has got you so worried?

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
However, all targets of those assassinations fall into three categories.
1. Terrorists, usually radical islamists or Chechen separatists.
2. Traitors, people who have betrayed the Russian security agencies. Recently we saw a failed example of this in Britain.
3. Oligarchs, the people who used to hold power in Russia before the security agencies re-established control. Those who refused to work with the security agencies have been hunted down and mostly killed.

Number three there would seem to qualify him for being a "murderous criminal". Unless "not doing what you're told" is now a capital offence.

I guess you could say that. The same goes for traitors actually. Russia supposedly abolished the death penalty after all, even for treason. Also note that in Russia, these three categories are often conflated. Terrorists, separatists and oligarchs are all seen as traitors as well. The oligarchs are the ones who sold out the Russian people after all for their own personal profit.

Yeah, but even if "robbing state industry to line your own pockets" was a capital crime - and there's days where I think it should be - you yourself admitted he's only assassinating the ones that don't toe his line, so the reason for being killed isn't being a "robber baron". Otherwise Roman Abramovich wouldn't have been back in Russia recently. And I think you could put Putin himself into that category, anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the murder of journalists, it may not be the Russian government making it happen, but if there's a general feeling that having troublemakers bumped off is acceptable behaviour, then more people are going to give it a go.

Yes, I certainly agree. Russia does not have a healthy climate for critical journalism anymore. As I said, I don't think the government is killing any journalists, but they are encouraging a climate of rabid nationalism and they very much depict critical voices as some kind of fifth column. In such a climate it is not strange that some nationalist idiots start thinking it is their duty to kill the "enemies of the people". And usually, the government is extremely lax in doing anything about it. The Nemtsov murder was probably the most high profile example.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
As I said, I don't think the government is killing any journalists, but they are encouraging a climate of rabid nationalism and they very much depict critical voices as some kind of fifth column. In such a climate it is not strange that some nationalist idiots start thinking it is their duty to kill the "enemies of the people". And usually, the government is extremely lax in doing anything about it. The Nemtsov murder was probably the most high profile example.

I suspect, however, that you might find that some of those rabid ultra-nationalists have found their way into the government and military. Putin himself doesn't have to be pushing the button for the government to be involved.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
As I said, I don't think the government is killing any journalists, but they are encouraging a climate of rabid nationalism and they very much depict critical voices as some kind of fifth column. In such a climate it is not strange that some nationalist idiots start thinking it is their duty to kill the "enemies of the people". And usually, the government is extremely lax in doing anything about it. The Nemtsov murder was probably the most high profile example.

I suspect, however, that you might find that some of those rabid ultra-nationalists have found their way into the government and military. Putin himself doesn't have to be pushing the button for the government to be involved.

"Might find"? More like certainly find. The army and security services are full of them. Pretty hard to tell if they are assassinating people though. I have not seen any evidence and it is not the kind of thing you discuss over a cup of chai.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

"Might find"? More like certainly find. The army and security services are full of them. Pretty hard to tell if they are assassinating people though. I have not seen any evidence and it is not the kind of thing you discuss over a cup of chai.

"Man, the boss is really riding me today. I've whacked fifteen traitors and have a list as long as my arm to finish off by tomorrow..."

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There is several problems with your statement that Putin is a murderous criminal. It implies two things, that he is a criminal and that he is murderous. Now, Putin does not have a criminal record, so we can't objectively say that he is a criminal.

Once again, this is only a problem if you refuse to accept the simple reality that Mr Putin is a murderous criminal.

And look at all the words you wrote out just to avoid having to accept that simple reality. You actually spent time typing out a question about why Mr Putin would be considered a criminal, and even tried to claim that criminality is subjective or something. You did all that to try and talk around the simple reality that Mr Putin has broken a series of international laws on stuff like money laundering and murder. Then there was some kind of argument that any world leader orders people to die, which is maybe meant to be the same as ordering political assassinations or something.

I mean, I can't summon the energy to even think how someone might even say that nonsense, let alone the energy needed to pretend it was true. I can't imagine how hard your brain has to work to maintain all that silliness. It must place an immense strain on you.

So maybe just, you know, don't? Just accept the simple obvious reality, even just try it on for size for a few months. See if maybe you find it a lot easier, a lot less stressful to approach things from a simple, reality based starting point. You might like it.

Also, on a completely unrelated note: Sebster, what happened to your avatar? Your old one was much better, it was so cute.

The coin is a celebration of the peace talks that will denuclearize the Korean peninsula, give Mr Trump his greatly deserved Nobel Peace Prize, and launch humanity in to an age of peace and prosperity that will finally take us in to the stars.

Or it's a staggeringly tacky coin, which was produced before meaningful talks had even begun, which showed the motivation for Trump in entering those talks was always about self-congratulation, and not the actual achievement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Number three there would seem to qualify him for being a "murderous criminal". Unless "not doing what you're told" is now a capital offence.

If anyone wants to understand what we're dealing with here, we should note Iron_Captain was arguing against me describing Putin as a murderous criminal, and as part of his argument doubted he planned to kill Babchenko because he isn't much like all the other people Putin has had murdered.

Also, the other Russian that pops up in these threads tried to claim that Skripal being exposed to an incredibly rare nerve agent 2,000 miles from its point of production was an accident.

 sebster wrote:

Once again, this is only a problem if you refuse to accept the simple reality that Mr Putin is a murderous criminal..

I might point out that IC is actually correct: Putin has never been convicted of a crime. You know, that silly 'proof' and 'conviction' business? You can claim he's a criminal, and you might even be right, but unless you have proof, well, 'innocent until proven guilty'.

As far as Freakazoitt goes, well, I don't think english is his first language, and even a man like Donald Trump has his supporters.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I might point out that IC is actually correct: Putin has never been convicted of a crime. You know, that silly 'proof' and 'conviction' business? You can claim he's a criminal, and you might even be right, but unless you have proof, well, 'innocent until proven guilty'.

It is an important concept for the courts, and following from that media reporting, but for regular people just talking freely and honestly? Nope, we get to say what we know to be true.

And if anyone wants to sit there saying well gee whizz they just can't figure out if maybe that Mr Putin guy might just be behind the deaths of political enemies, then that person is just not sensible enough to be included in the conversation.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There is several problems with your statement that Putin is a murderous criminal. It implies two things, that he is a criminal and that he is murderous. Now, Putin does not have a criminal record, so we can't objectively say that he is a criminal.

Once again, this is only a problem if you refuse to accept the simple reality that Mr Putin is a murderous criminal.

So maybe just, you know, don't? Just accept the simple obvious reality, even just try it on for size for a few months. See if maybe you find it a lot easier, a lot less stressful to approach things from a simple, reality based starting point. You might like it.

You are almost sounding like some kind of cult leader leader here.
"Accept the truth, accept the reality! We don't need evidence, we know it to be true!"

Anyways, I have learned at school that I need to see evidence before I accept something as reality. Which is a pity, because it means I had to give up my secret childhood hope that dragons are actually real.

 sebster wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I might point out that IC is actually correct: Putin has never been convicted of a crime. You know, that silly 'proof' and 'conviction' business? You can claim he's a criminal, and you might even be right, but unless you have proof, well, 'innocent until proven guilty'.

It is an important concept for the courts, and following from that media reporting, but for regular people just talking freely and honestly? Nope, we get to say what we know to be true.

And if anyone wants to sit there saying well gee whizz they just can't figure out if maybe that Mr Putin guy might just be behind the deaths of political enemies, then that person is just not sensible enough to be included in the conversation.

"Jet fuel can't melt steel beams! And if anyone can't just figure out and accept that simple reality, than that person is just not sensible enough to be included in the conversation."

Remember that one time when you insisted that all Western media were largely the same for several pages despite ludicrous amounts of evidence to the contrary? Yeah, that kind of "discussion" is probably why sebster can't be bothered any more.

FWIW I agree that it's harsh to instantly assume that it was Putin was behind it, but I also don't think it was unfair. Russia hasn't exactly been kind to its critics or neighbours.

Iron Captain: I'm worried because you seemed like a really precociously smart kid a few years ago, and now you are wholesale buying into the Putin defender script. It's sad to me because I think Putin is bad for the world and bad for Russia. I'm glad you're doing alright though. I always liked your posts.

 Da Boss wrote:
Iron Captain: I'm worried because you seemed like a really precociously smart kid a few years ago, and now you are wholesale buying into the Putin defender script. It's sad to me because I think Putin is bad for the world and bad for Russia. I'm glad you're doing alright though. I always liked your posts.

Just because IC is safely studying in the West doesn't mean his family is. It would be trivially easy for the Russian government to tie any unpatriotic online statements to him and send his whole bloodline off to the salt mines in Siberia*.

*Mostly joking. Mostly.

Da Boss wrote:Iron Captain: I'm worried because you seemed like a really precociously smart kid a few years ago, and now you are wholesale buying into the Putin defender script. It's sad to me because I think Putin is bad for the world and bad for Russia. I'm glad you're doing alright though. I always liked your posts.

Thanks for the kind words. That precociousness got me into a lot of trouble though... But don't worry. I am not buying into any Putin scripts. I don't even like Putin. I want Russia to become a modern, full democracy, fully integrated with the West. Just like you, I think Putin is an impediment to that. He is taking Russia back to the past, with all the imperialism, militarism, wars and isolation that implies. But I do see why Putin is as popular with the Russian people as he is. The West has often treated Russia with hostility and tried to bully it. Putin stands up to that, he gives Russians their pride back. I think national pride is great. Just such a pity it goes at the cost of democracy and non-military economic development.
So yeah, I will defend Putin when I feel that he is being attacked unjustly (and with the rabid russophobia loose in the West these days, that is often), because such unjust attacks only drive Russia and the West farther apart. Therefore I feel such attacks must be countered. On the other hand however, I will also fully agree with any justified criticism of Putin (and there is a lot of that to be had). I am not some kind of blind Putinist fanboy, but neither am I a blind anti-Putinist. I am somewhere in the middle I think? Just like I am in the middle between Russia and the West.

feeder wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Iron Captain: I'm worried because you seemed like a really precociously smart kid a few years ago, and now you are wholesale buying into the Putin defender script. It's sad to me because I think Putin is bad for the world and bad for Russia. I'm glad you're doing alright though. I always liked your posts.

Just because IC is safely studying in the West doesn't mean his family is. It would be trivially easy for the Russian government to tie any unpatriotic online statements to him and send his whole bloodline off to the salt mines in Siberia*.

*Mostly joking. Mostly.

They would not even have to send many people. My family once used to be really big, but now it is quite small. The Communists took care of most of them already. My entire family was on the wrong side of the civil war, all except my great-grandfather. They were all killed in either the war or the Stalinist purges later on, except for one guy who ended up somewhere in Michigan.
And tying that to the subject of Putin and Russian politics, I think it would be great if Russia got a Tsar back. Not as the bloody dictators that past Tsars were, but as a constitutional monarch who could watch over the constitution and prevent people like Putin from abusing it. I guess I won't get a lot of support for that idea in Russia though...

 sebster wrote:

but for regular people just talking freely and honestly? Nope, we get to say what we know to be true.

Looks back at the Gaza thread.

Dude, stop Bogarting whatever you're smoking and pass it my way.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Yeah yeah... after failing to explain what and how exactly Skripal accident happened it ended up with "But it was Putin, because he is bad".

Really? You're saying a nerve agent was accidentally put on someone's door handle?

No, he is saying that if a nerve agent was put there, nothing proves it was Russia.

https://francais.rt.com/international/50338-pas-besoin-mentir-president-tcheque-affirme-pays-produit-novitchok-skripal
(Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden or even United Kindgom are listed in this article). But why think before posting, since an old woman in England said it was Russia (without any proof of any kind), it must be true

Even their own lab can't identify it as a Novitchok from Russia (despite what the politics said before): https://francais.rt.com/international/49405-skripal-experts-militaires-britanniques-incapables-confirmer

Saying Russia didn't do it and posting RT as a source is up there with calling Obama an evil mastermind and linking Fox.

So, only leftist reporters who agree with you have the right to write ?
Way to go, liberals ! I don't know why I keep speaking with people like you...
It is pretty clear that you know you are wrong but keep posting the same anyway

Lol, rant away, just know that nobody will take you seriously if you hold up RT as a truthful source on their own employer.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Lol, rant away, just know that nobody will take you seriously if you hold up RT as a truthful source on their own employer.

So what is a truthful source for narrow minded people ?
And, it may be RT, but facts are facts !

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Lol, rant away, just know that nobody will take you seriously if you hold up RT as a truthful source on their own employer.

So what is a truthful source for narrow minded people ?
And, it may be RT, but facts are facts !

Apparently RT.

But almost any outlet on the subject is better than RT, because RT has an obvious horse in the race as an Russian state outlet. And facts are facts, which are heavily pointing towards Russia with no other realistic perpetrator, I mean Sweden? Really?

Countries listed are not perpetrators, but produced the nerve agent. It was to show it could came from nearly everywhere.
I have showed you some facts, where are your heavily pointing facts ?
If not proven guilty, you should treat Russia innocent. If there is an honnest investigation, one day we will know everything. I am just asking for truth, not defending Russia, but I think hysteria and casual leftist hate for Russia led us here.
Again, what are «truthful» sources ? Reporters that point toward Russia ? So you are right because you are right, then ?
I always thought you to be an honnest, if misleaded, person.
I may have been wrong. Do you have an agenda against poor Russia ?

Nearly everywhere is 4 countries now? My facts? Russia trying to prevent an international investigation, the whole media circus on "this is what happens to traitors nudge nudge wink wink" in state media, the fact that most Western countries agreed with the UK conclusion (even some European countries more favorable towards Russia), common sense about who has a motive.

Again with this innocent until proven guilty stuff. Damn, what is up with Dakka these days. So innocent until guilty for something you're never going to have a trial on? A lot of war criminals are going to be very happy to hear that.

Actualy the left doesn't hate Russia anymore then the right. If anything the more hard left loves it. Hatred for Russia used to be a right wing thing right up until 2016.

More credible sources, start with anyone who's bills aren't paid by Putin. Linking RT is the equivalent of the more crazy lefties posting Global Research, which I think actually happened in this very thread. How about Reuters and work your way down from there. When it comes to Russia and its allies RT has a bias because they discuss their employer. You don't have to believe reporters who say it was Russia, but you really shouldn't believe the news outlet trying to push it as a UK false flag operation to get the UK public riled up against Russia.

 godardc wrote:

I always thought you to be an honnest, if misleaded, person.
I may have been wrong. Do you have an agenda against poor Russia ?

The issue is that RT is a less than credible source for...well, anything, but particularly things to do with Russia. It;'s like saying that 'Well, here in Der Stürmer it says that Hitler is a great leader for Germany!'

Ok, I tried Reuters, it is basically the same articles, minus the one showing that 5 countries made the nerve agent, with the Czech president confessing it. So, it is the same truth, but halfed. Nice. How is this better ? They just omitted an important piece of information.
And yes, you can't say someone is guilty just because he looks to be guilty. That is how the "tolerant" left works, I know, they don't care about facts or reality, only emotions, but usually when you accuse people without proofs it end up being false.

Its not that important though, the only relevance in saying that other countries have it too is trying to deflect. For example, when Iranians get bombed by unkown planes in Syria, its pretty clear that Israel is the only convincing suspect. Going "well all these other countries have planes too!" is not all that relevant. The only reason other countries keep getting brought up is because as long as Russia doesn't cooperate it has a degree of 'plausible' deniability.

The only country not cooperating is England. They didn't even allowed Skripal family to see them... Strange, isn't it ?
So, the fact that others countries had the same weapons that was used isn't important to know who did it ?
Wow, I hope you never become investigator^^

When undertaking an investigation you don't start at "blame everyone who owns a knife". Rather the final decision's based on multiple behaviours which when put together make the culprit the most plausible.

The side which is yelling the loudest that they couldn't be involved, whilst blaming everyone else, draws the most attention. I'd imagine that the other parties which could have potentially committed the crime were more forthright. Buts its not just the shouting and screaming which makes the Russians suspicious. Having those affiliated with the government on this, and previous crimes, gloat about the crime and talk about the ways in which it would benefit Russia don't help either.

The current line of evidence implicating Russia may be a load of informed coincidences and stuff that the Intelligence Agencies aren't telling people. Though put that together with the dozens of prior assassinations which the Russian government's perpetrated in a similar fashion and they seem like the most likely suspect. ...Or are we ignoring that when the British government asked that Russia give a response to their accusations another of Putin's detractor's living in England died under mysterious circumstances?

 godardc wrote:
The only country not cooperating is England. They didn't even allowed Skripal family to see them... Strange, isn't it ?
So, the fact that others countries had the same weapons that was used isn't important to know who did it ?
Wow, I hope you never become investigator^^

Why is that strange, two people were almost killed by a state actor, refusing access to them by Russian nationals even if they are family members isn't strange. Family visits sound nice and all, but you have no idea if it is under duress in an attempt to tamper with witnesses.

No it isn't unless you have a convincing motive why Sweden could be behind it. Saying anyone could have done it is a huge waste of resources when you have plenty of pointers to narrow it down first. I hope you're not an investigator either, you might not solve a single crime when you take the whole world as your suspect pool out of a weird sense of 'fairness'.