8 ms·

>> no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc >Where did you get that? Well, from the fact that there usu

>> no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc >Where did you get that? Well, from the fact that there usually is evidence provided, and such evidence usually gets denied by either the high-ranking state officials, and/or state-controlled media and/or state-controlled social media accounts and/or similar channels. In any case the real evidence is seldom presented at all, let alone neutrally, on the state-controlled channels. Just look at the cases I listed. There is no doubt of deep involvement. Yet in all cases the provided evidence is "fantasy" or "fabrications" or ultimately a "NATO plot" or even waved off as some form of totally illogical hatred of the Russian people (!). Then there's also the counter-evidences, which are often clumsy attempts to add confusion to the real evidences and to delegitimize the original claims of guilt. For example, in the MH17 case, there was satellite imagery of a fighter jet firing missiles and so on. In the Navalny nerve agent poisoning case there was a "phone call between Warsaw and Berlin". Sadly, and predictably, denial of presented evidence is the usual reaction and a deliberate part of the communication strategy employed. On one hand, it is completely logical, because accepting the evidence would be an admission of guilt and such a thing never seems to be done. On the other hand, given their ongoing track record of aggressive and rather expansionist rhetoric, bullying their neighbouring countries and the tendency of always denying evidence, even for things which are clearly their doings, why should any nation think Russia is innocent if something points to Russia? > the most striking part is always the total absence of any evidence at all No, there is no "total absence of evidence". There is usually plenty of evidence. And from this we go back to the deliberate strategy of rejecting evidence; the evidence is always somehow lacking, incomplete, inaccurate, etc. or that there is no evidence at all. The bottom line is that unfortunately Russia is perceived to be like a bully against its neighbouring countries in its West and North-West because of its words and actions. If it stopped doing the needless bullying, maybe those neighbouring countries wouldn't be so fast to point the finger at Russia.

cnst 6y ago
It's so funny how you're very quick to point out that the evidence would be denied, at the same time, we're still not even provided any evidence at all. The link is literally empty; there's nothing more at the link than the custom title we see here. So, basically, if it comes down to Russia being the defendant, the mere accusation alone should already be sufficient, because Russia always denies the validity of evidence, so, hence there's no need to provide any, because it'll only make it easier for the defendant to defend themselves, when all the evidence is on public display?! And this happens every single time? If Russia is the defendant, then they're surely guilty? So, we shouldn't even go into the trouble of bothering to collect or examine the evidence? I mean, can you even remember any time, any one single time, when Russia was accused merely for political gain, and we should have been smarter than taking the bait?
elmo2you 6y ago
>The bottom line is that unfortunately Russia is perceived to be like a bully against its neighbouring countries in its West and North-West because of its words and actions. If it stopped doing the needless bullying, maybe those neighbouring countries wouldn't be so fast to point the finger at Russia. Sure, that's really the reason. As with everything above it, you may want to hone your skills in differentiating propaganda from (corroborated) facts. As for the cases you mentioned, there certainly are doubts about (deep) involvement of Russia. For starters because most of the purported evidence really does raise questions about its reliability and in some cases has been shown to not add up. Mind you, I'm not saying this means Russia is innocent. Just that the evidence is inconclusive and in some cases highly questionable (at best). You of course can frame any such doubts as if all "evidence" is just categorically going to be rejected or denied, but that will on you. I don't know how long you have been around and whether you've moved around a lot, but after decades of rather "hands on" experience with how NATO member (often on USA command) have done all kind of (increasingly) questionable things to further their agenda. If you can say with a straight face that this organization to not lie or produces falsified evidence, than you've clearly have little actual experience with being on the receiving end of their efforts. Please do take into account that it is you who is talking like there is an already established fact, that Russia is as bad as you claim, while in reality all of that is derived from rather questionable assertions and in more than a few cases obvious propaganda. I don't claim that Russia is good or bad. That's a complicated discussion and a whole different story, which sadly can hardly be had with most Americans anyways, because the majority is already too presumptuous and indoctrinated to even have a level and honest discussion about it. What this is about is if there is credible evidence that Russia is (to a high degree of likelihood) guilty of the things you claim(ed) about them. To the best of my knowledge, the answer to that is a clear no. In fact, all I have seen regarding that for the last two decades or so, has been (pretty much without exception) propaganda, framed, falsified or otherwise not passing the bar of credibility. But feel free to believe otherwise. I'm pretty sure that time will teach you. Especially since the apparatus that has been pushing all this garbage, is slow but surely creeping towards its inevitable demise. There will be a lot of skeletons falling from closets, you better believe it. In fact, you'd be lucky when those who have suffered from these "games" (and many innocent citizens certainly have) will be forgiving when the full extend of this shit show really comes to light. It will pale both Wikileaks and Snowden in comparison.

cnst 6y ago

It's so funny how you're very quick to point out that the evidence would be denied, at the same time, we're still not even provided any evidence at all. The link is literally empty; there's nothing more at the link than the custom title we see here. So, basically, if it comes down to Russia being the defendant, the mere accusation alone should already be sufficient, because Russia always denies the validity of evidence, so, hence there's no need to provide any, because it'll only make it easier for the defendant to defend themselves, when all the evidence is on public display?! And this happens every single time? If Russia is the defendant, then they're surely guilty? So, we shouldn't even go into the trouble of bothering to collect or examine the evidence? I mean, can you even remember any time, any one single time, when Russia was accused merely for political gain, and we should have been smarter than taking the bait?

elmo2you 6y ago

>The bottom line is that unfortunately Russia is perceived to be like a bully against its neighbouring countries in its West and North-West because of its words and actions. If it stopped doing the needless bullying, maybe those neighbouring countries wouldn't be so fast to point the finger at Russia. Sure, that's really the reason. As with everything above it, you may want to hone your skills in differentiating propaganda from (corroborated) facts. As for the cases you mentioned, there certainly are doubts about (deep) involvement of Russia. For starters because most of the purported evidence really does raise questions about its reliability and in some cases has been shown to not add up. Mind you, I'm not saying this means Russia is innocent. Just that the evidence is inconclusive and in some cases highly questionable (at best). You of course can frame any such doubts as if all "evidence" is just categorically going to be rejected or denied, but that will on you. I don't know how long you have been around and whether you've moved around a lot, but after decades of rather "hands on" experience with how NATO member (often on USA command) have done all kind of (increasingly) questionable things to further their agenda. If you can say with a straight face that this organization to not lie or produces falsified evidence, than you've clearly have little actual experience with being on the receiving end of their efforts. Please do take into account that it is you who is talking like there is an already established fact, that Russia is as bad as you claim, while in reality all of that is derived from rather questionable assertions and in more than a few cases obvious propaganda. I don't claim that Russia is good or bad. That's a complicated discussion and a whole different story, which sadly can hardly be had with most Americans anyways, because the majority is already too presumptuous and indoctrinated to even have a level and honest discussion about it. What this is about is if there is credible evidence that Russia is (to a high degree of likelihood) guilty of the things you claim(ed) about them. To the best of my knowledge, the answer to that is a clear no. In fact, all I have seen regarding that for the last two decades or so, has been (pretty much without exception) propaganda, framed, falsified or otherwise not passing the bar of credibility. But feel free to believe otherwise. I'm pretty sure that time will teach you. Especially since the apparatus that has been pushing all this garbage, is slow but surely creeping towards its inevitable demise. There will be a lot of skeletons falling from closets, you better believe it. In fact, you'd be lucky when those who have suffered from these "games" (and many innocent citizens certainly have) will be forgiving when the full extend of this shit show really comes to light. It will pale both Wikileaks and Snowden in comparison.