3 ms·

I’m not expressing concern or lack of concern about anything but the uncritical acceptance of the explanation for what’s happened here. All of those things you

I’m not expressing concern or lack of concern about anything but the uncritical acceptance of the explanation for what’s happened here. All of those things you list, they are very serious. And so is accusing another sovereign of carrying out a murder. Truth doesn’t have a side, and two falsehoods don’t make a truth. For the record, I am concerned about those actions by Russia. I think it’s downright awful what they’ve done to the Ukraine.

shkkmo 8y ago
Well, for the record, you sound more like a russian shill account than a skeptic. Given your comment history I doubt you actually are. While I certainly think there are more details we don't know and I'll take any explanation with a grain of salt, parroting the Russian line that this is a "Ukranian PR ruse" doesn't make you a skeptic.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  Did you even read my comment? Raising it as an obvious possibility worth considering, followed by saying that I have no reason to believe anything in particular about this, is not “parroting” anything. Just how carefully do I have to phrase my statements to not “sound like a Russian shill”? Do I need to separate each substantive sentence with a condmenation of Putin, to prove that I am not guilty of wrongthink?
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    Read your tone for yourself: >How is no one raising the possibility that this was done to frame Russia, and that now they have changed their mind for whatever reason (perhaps fear of the ruse being discovered). Surely that’s worth considering. You start off with a tone of disbelief that this theory that "should be obvious as a possibility" is being overlooked when all the articles I've read quote Russian sources espousing exactly that theory. Then you don't actually provide any reasoning or evidence as to why the official story doesn't hold up, nor do you provide any evidence to support your theory. Your theory itself doesn't make sense to me. Faking someone's death as a PR stunt that will draw media attention and scrutiny is risky. I don't see how the massive risk of credibility loss for Ukraine is worth the relatively small PR hit to Russia. The cost / benefit analysis just doesn't seem worth it. A far more realistic theory was that the attempted hit was real, has some plausible connection to Russia, but the staging of the reporter's death was done with an eye strongly on the extra media attention and PR implications that it would bring to the case rather than solely for investigative purposes.

shkkmo 8y ago

Well, for the record, you sound more like a russian shill account than a skeptic. Given your comment history I doubt you actually are. While I certainly think there are more details we don't know and I'll take any explanation with a grain of salt, parroting the Russian line that this is a "Ukranian PR ruse" doesn't make you a skeptic.

marcoperaza 8y ago
Did you even read my comment? Raising it as an obvious possibility worth considering, followed by saying that I have no reason to believe anything in particular about this, is not “parroting” anything. Just how carefully do I have to phrase my statements to not “sound like a Russian shill”? Do I need to separate each substantive sentence with a condmenation of Putin, to prove that I am not guilty of wrongthink?
- shkkmo 8y ago
  Read your tone for yourself: >How is no one raising the possibility that this was done to frame Russia, and that now they have changed their mind for whatever reason (perhaps fear of the ruse being discovered). Surely that’s worth considering. You start off with a tone of disbelief that this theory that "should be obvious as a possibility" is being overlooked when all the articles I've read quote Russian sources espousing exactly that theory. Then you don't actually provide any reasoning or evidence as to why the official story doesn't hold up, nor do you provide any evidence to support your theory. Your theory itself doesn't make sense to me. Faking someone's death as a PR stunt that will draw media attention and scrutiny is risky. I don't see how the massive risk of credibility loss for Ukraine is worth the relatively small PR hit to Russia. The cost / benefit analysis just doesn't seem worth it. A far more realistic theory was that the attempted hit was real, has some plausible connection to Russia, but the staging of the reporter's death was done with an eye strongly on the extra media attention and PR implications that it would bring to the case rather than solely for investigative purposes.