5 ms·

One can only wonder how fast Germany issued a visa to a criminal convicted of economic crime ( when anybody just half-knowledgeable about USSR/Russia 198x-199x

One can only wonder how fast Germany issued a visa to a criminal convicted of economic crime ( when anybody just half-knowledgeable about USSR/Russia 198x-199x history has no doubts about the crimes) . Calling him a "prisoner of conscience" is total disrespect and offense to real prisoners of conscience who stand up and suffer for their principles (like Pussy Riot girls for example). He stood up for his wealth and power refusing to accept the reality that the new rising thief at the time - Putin and Co. - become stronger than him. He challenged Putin and lost. Will Putin be called a "prisoner of conscience" when/if some new guy send Putin to a Siberia camp?

Mikeb85 13y ago
Pussy Riot, really? They would have been thrown in jail in most western countries for what they did too. Hell, in Canada they may have even been charged with a hate crime... The only reason anyone cares about them is because they also happened to criticise Putin...
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  nobody said that western countries don't have prisoners of conscience or laws which would make them. Aaron Swartz. Chelsea Manning. Or look at Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act laws. ...
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    Vandalizing private property and hate speech have nothing to do with conscience... It's a piss poor justification... Just like people who bomb pipelines and spray paint swastikas on synagogues. Belief doesn't make a wrong a right...
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >Vandalizing private property and hate speech have nothing to do with conscience... It has nothing to do with Pussy Riot. You're talking out of your a##. > Just like people who bomb pipelines and spray paint swastikas on synagogues. the same - it has nothing to do with Pussy Riot.
      - Mikeb85 13y ago
        Really? They committed a crime using the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use. The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews...
        VladRussian2 13y ago
        >the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use. former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence? > The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews... Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity.
        Mikeb85 13y ago
        > former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence? It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period. > Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity. Challenging the church regarding their supposed support of Putin isn't the problem, using it as a justification for illegal behaviour is. What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world. In Canada, people spray painting political graffiti on a synagogue is a crime, even if the content of the graffiti isn't necessarily insulting to Judaism. The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it...
        VladRussian2 13y ago
        >It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period. what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale meat? I doubt whales would see it as a harm. Or people who worked for decades to restore whales population. Or people who are just disgusted by whale killings. >What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world. i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia? Or calling upon God to chase away a President is a crime "in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world"? > The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it... You seem to be saying that no illegal behaviour can be justified. Well, you've mentioned swastikas and Judaism before. That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly wrong.
sentenza 13y ago
His trial was a farce and highly publicized in Germany at the time. Germany is also trying to get Timochenko out of Ukraine, even though (from the point of view of some Ukranians I spoke to) she cheated the country in negotiating some contracts. I'd rather say this goes with the Zeitgeist, so your question should probably be rephrased from "why him" to "why not also Snowden".
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >His trial was a farce As if there is any other kind of trial in Russia. Quick introduction on Russia trials : http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tribunal_%28episode%29 http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tribunal_%28episode%29 >Germany is also trying to get Timochenko out of Ukraine yep, one more "prisoner of conscience" of Khodorkovsky type >so your question should probably be rephrased from "why him" to "why not also Snowden". as i already said, there is nothing in common between Khodorkovsky and people like Snowden. Snowden challenged the State, the Order of Things on the right/wrong principles, whereis Khodorkovsky being at the time among largest beneficiaries of the Order of Things challenged a specific person for personal [beneficial] position in that Order of Things.

Mikeb85 13y ago

Pussy Riot, really? They would have been thrown in jail in most western countries for what they did too. Hell, in Canada they may have even been charged with a hate crime... The only reason anyone cares about them is because they also happened to criticise Putin...

VladRussian2 13y ago
nobody said that western countries don't have prisoners of conscience or laws which would make them. Aaron Swartz. Chelsea Manning. Or look at Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act laws. ...
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Vandalizing private property and hate speech have nothing to do with conscience... It's a piss poor justification... Just like people who bomb pipelines and spray paint swastikas on synagogues. Belief doesn't make a wrong a right...
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >Vandalizing private property and hate speech have nothing to do with conscience... It has nothing to do with Pussy Riot. You're talking out of your a##. > Just like people who bomb pipelines and spray paint swastikas on synagogues. the same - it has nothing to do with Pussy Riot.
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      Really? They committed a crime using the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use. The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews...
      - VladRussian2 13y ago
        >the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use. former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence? > The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews... Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity.
        Mikeb85 13y ago
        > former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence? It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period. > Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity. Challenging the church regarding their supposed support of Putin isn't the problem, using it as a justification for illegal behaviour is. What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world. In Canada, people spray painting political graffiti on a synagogue is a crime, even if the content of the graffiti isn't necessarily insulting to Judaism. The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it...
        VladRussian2 13y ago
        >It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period. what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale meat? I doubt whales would see it as a harm. Or people who worked for decades to restore whales population. Or people who are just disgusted by whale killings. >What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world. i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia? Or calling upon God to chase away a President is a crime "in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world"? > The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it... You seem to be saying that no illegal behaviour can be justified. Well, you've mentioned swastikas and Judaism before. That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly wrong.

sentenza 13y ago

His trial was a farce and highly publicized in Germany at the time. Germany is also trying to get Timochenko out of Ukraine, even though (from the point of view of some Ukranians I spoke to) she cheated the country in negotiating some contracts. I'd rather say this goes with the Zeitgeist, so your question should probably be rephrased from "why him" to "why not also Snowden".

VladRussian2 13y ago
>His trial was a farce As if there is any other kind of trial in Russia. Quick introduction on Russia trials : http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tribunal_%28episode%29 http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tribunal_%28episode%29 >Germany is also trying to get Timochenko out of Ukraine yep, one more "prisoner of conscience" of Khodorkovsky type >so your question should probably be rephrased from "why him" to "why not also Snowden". as i already said, there is nothing in common between Khodorkovsky and people like Snowden. Snowden challenged the State, the Order of Things on the right/wrong principles, whereis Khodorkovsky being at the time among largest beneficiaries of the Order of Things challenged a specific person for personal [beneficial] position in that Order of Things.