8 ms·

It is interesting, that as an argument of moral right to restrict basic civil rights or to start war in Ukraine or other shit, Putin's dolls use a thesis that t

by go13 12y ago

It is interesting, that as an argument of moral right to restrict basic civil rights or to start war in Ukraine or other shit, Putin's dolls use a thesis that the US or other countries did something similar like SOPA, war in Iraq, Guantanamo or shutting down of different protests. Usually these guys (Putin's apologist not major players) don't know much details about the subject (as well as most other people/all of us) but they use these arguments to justify crimes of Putin's regime. It is like to justify killing of innocent people in the USSR because Nazi Germany did this too. Disclaimer: i don't compare the US or other countries with Nazi Germany but used this example as a hyperbole to show the issue.

BugBrother 12y ago
The really funny part is that they use the same type of argument in other languages in other part of the world. Not "Your country also did something almost similar in other circumstances". But "A third party did something almost similar in other circumstances". As I've written multiple times in Swedish -- you must update your argument templates for the local environment!
jacquesm 12y ago
At the same time the outrage from the west about Ukrainian separatists shooting down a civilian plane versus a totally different attitude when the US shot down an Iranian civilian plane does not sit right with me either. These things should all be dealt with equally, no matter who the perpetrators are and who the victims.
- go13 12y ago
  These things should NOT all be dealt with equally! Because if you state this then you mean that the politics and the relationship between Russia and the west are not led by LAW but by "bad things" an opposite side did. These things should be dealt by LAW and JUSTICE and you should not link one to another because if you do then you end up justifying the USSR crimes because Nazi Germany did this! UPD: A crime should be a crime in all countries. The problem is that some countries use other's crimes as an argument. I said "things should NOT all be dealt with equally" because the judgement should base not on what others think about this but what the moral and the law says.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    Can I invoke Poe's Law on your comment as I have no idea whether you are being serious or not. :-)
  - Ntrails 12y ago
    The point is, that if something is illegal for one party, it's illegal for all. The point isn't that the USSR crimes are ok because Nazi Germany did it, it's that if it is a crime for the USSR then it must be a crime for Nazi Germany, or the UK, or the US. This, of course, isn't how the world works. But if you believe it should be, it's hard to accept the Russians are the only ones who have crimes to answer for - they just seem to be the only ones being brought to account.
    - go13 12y ago
      I am confused with your reply: > But if you believe it should be - what you mean? >The point is, that if something is illegal for one party, it's illegal for all. - in some countries the law doesn't work and this country's elite don't act basing on the law and justice but use manipulation (like my example with USSR and Nazi Germany) to justify it's actions which results in more bad things. Example USSR-Germany is a parallel to what some Russians are stating: like the current law on blogging is okay because the US initiated similar law too. Bloggers, free media and readers are in fact victims of this manipulation because the US has nothing to do with Russia's internal policy. And still some Russians use this argument as a justification of this law. Please read my previous comment thoroughly.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Also the Ukraine government accidentally shot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 in 2001. Now I do believe that Russia probably supplied a missile system to Ukrainian separatists who then shot down an airliner, however I do not believe that they wanted to shoot down that airliner. It seems much more likely that they were paranoid idiots. If you look at all the different political responses to airliners being downed by military recklessness, the one thing that seems consistent is the complete lack of consistency.
  - PerfectDlite 12y ago
    > Also the Ukraine government accidentally shot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 in 2001. It was shot down during joint Russian-Ukrainian trainings, missile was sent from Russian base... but somehow Ukraine got all the blame?
- ianstallings 12y ago
  I remember those days and the world was outraged. How is that a different attitude? But unlike MH17, the US took the downing of the Iranian airliner right on the chin and didn't try to deflect. They went to court (ICJ), paid the victims, and punished those responsible. It's too bad we don't see that with MH17. I wonder if we will ever see those responsible punished.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    The US did not punish those responsible. No formal apology was ever even issued, no liability was accepted, those responsible were decorated, not punished. The US paid the value of the Jet they shot down and some money per victim but never admitted any guilt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
    - ianstallings 12y ago
      I stand corrected. But I will note that Captain Rogers never commanded another ship after the Vincennes returned to the US in 1989. My main point still stands though. The US acknowledged the mistake and took measures to make sure it didn't happen again. Will we ever see the same from MH17?
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > The US did not punish those responsible. That's because no one person was directly responsible. Even for assholes like CAPT Rogers (who certainly did everything he could to get his ship into a bad situation [1]), no Navy commanding officer wakes up in the morning hoping to get to push the button on a civilian airliner. There was much more that went into Iran Air 655 than a rogue captain [2]. And while there's plenty of room for blame to go around (we could ask the same question of military officers in 1988 as we do of Russia today: Why did you have this advanced weapons system in the hands of people so seemingly untrained and aggressive?), simply lopping off heads because something horrible happened is no more just than mob rule. There's a reason we don't simply fire everyone involved with civil aviation crashes, for example. The "decorations" you refer to were given as a standard element of completing a tour at a duty station. They are given to everybody who completes a tour at a duty station, with the type of decoration being dependent upon rank. You're right that the actions of the U.S. remain unacceptable, but I think we would all be happier if we could get either the separatists and/or Russia's GRU to pay the families of the victims and pay Malaysian Airlines to replace the Boeing. I mean, even the U.S. could be bothered to do that for a nation they had been literally fighting in the waters of the Persian Gulf! Last I checked Russia wasn't in armed conflict with the Netherlands or Malaysia. [1] http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-case-study http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-... (Don't be fooled by USNI here, this piece is damning of CAPT Rogers) [2] http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-422-human-supervisory-control-of-automated-systems-spring-2004/projects/vincennes.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-4...
7952 12y ago
In conversation I have on occasions defended Putin even though I dislike his policies. People seem to give their own countries the benefit of the doubt based on the context at the time, For example, within the UK David Cameron championed laws in the 80s that made it illegal for goverment to publish material that could promote homosexuality. People shrug off resposibility for this by telling you that "it was a different time". Russia has introduced laws that are not dissimilar to widespread outrage. Whilst we are right to campaign against such things you cannot expect a country to modernise instantly overnight or welcome outside interference. People should be reminded that all countries are following a path, and some countries are further along than others. The west does not have a monopoly on justice.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  The gay laws that Putin has brought in seem to be about doing the minimum required to keep the Russian christian right happy while not actually making homosexuality illegal. I find this interesting, especially in light of Putin's many bare-chested photoshoots. I sometimes wonder if those laws might be partly a response to his advisers telling him that he was starting to get a bit of a gay following and that he needed to do something about it before the hardliners started suspecting his manliness. I mean, really. - http://38.media.tumblr.com/880d58b9b6c9abf8ecc9fdbe4da497e0/tumblr_mftwsoPtJr1rmrac7o1_500.jpg http://38.media.tumblr.com/880d58b9b6c9abf8ecc9fdbe4da497e0/...
  - Elhana 12y ago
    Since when everyone without tshirt became gay? Really: http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/a/X/2/obama-shirtless-photo.jpg http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/a/X/2/obama-shirtless-...
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Last Wednesday. There was a vote.
  - 7952 12y ago
    It is funny how often that photoshoot come up, sometime as an ad hominem attack on him. Lets ignore the personality cult and massive nuclear arsenal to concentrate on his slighty chubby tummy. It is not interesting at all.
imaginenore 12y ago
This! I've gotten into a few debates recently, and like clockwork they use "well country x does it too herp derp". Sorry, but other's criminal behavior doesn't magically justify yours. You are adding to the problem instead of solving it. Same exact thing with religious debates.
Elhana 12y ago
I don't see EU implementing any sanctions against US for Guantanamo or Israel for slaughtering Palestinians. If you punish one country for a crime - be consistent and do it for all of them. Iran can't have peaceful nuclear tech, but Israel can have their Nukes. Kosovo is a "special case" allowed by EU, but other parties can't do the same. Even enthnic cleansing argument doesn't cut it - look at Ukraine, same thing pretty much, but KFOR is good, and DNR/LNR are terrorists.
- mpyne 12y ago
  Guantanamo is (now, just) a military detainee facility, something which is permitted under international law for states undergoing armed conflict. In the U.S.'s case, they've been in a long running armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the Afghanistan Taliban. The camp could just as well be in Kansas at this point for all that the law is concerned (just where we kept German POWs back in the day), the detainees wouldn't get any substantive additional rights. Likewise, unless you can show that Israel is deliberately targeting Palestinian non-combatants then there's not going to be an international legal basis for sanctions. That certainly wouldn't stop individual countries from applying sanctions if they wish due to their own norms, but that's arguably a double standard as by that logic the world would have to sanction essentially everywhere but western Europe and maybe Canada. Iran can have peaceful nuclear tech, it's explicitly permitted by the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty. If you seriously think this whole thing is just about turning the lights on in Tehran you need to pay more attention to this issue. Even the Western media doesn't refer to DNR/LNR as "terrorists", but as "separatists". They don't even simply call them Russian puppets either, they're always referred to as rebels or separatists of DNR or LNR, and only then possible ties to Russia mentioned. The one time I did see "terrorism" bandied about regarding either DNR or LNR, a Malaysian Airlines Boeing was burning on live TV... Where is "ethnic cleansing" going on in Ukraine?
  - Elhana 12y ago
    Torture is not permitted under international law last time I checked, but US doesn't care and neither does EU. And I love the argument that unless you can prove Israel is deliberately targeting Palestinians, they are innocent - that is extremely hard to prove, but very easy for Israel to tell that they "had intelligence". Obviously it is much easier to just blow up a building with a rocket if you've seen Hamas fighter entering it and noone seems to care if there are many civilians inside.

by go13 12y ago

BugBrother 12y ago

The really funny part is that they use the same type of argument in other languages in other part of the world. Not "Your country also did something almost similar in other circumstances". But "A third party did something almost similar in other circumstances". As I've written multiple times in Swedish -- you must update your argument templates for the local environment!

jacquesm 12y ago

At the same time the outrage from the west about Ukrainian separatists shooting down a civilian plane versus a totally different attitude when the US shot down an Iranian civilian plane does not sit right with me either. These things should all be dealt with equally, no matter who the perpetrators are and who the victims.

go13 12y ago
These things should NOT all be dealt with equally! Because if you state this then you mean that the politics and the relationship between Russia and the west are not led by LAW but by "bad things" an opposite side did. These things should be dealt by LAW and JUSTICE and you should not link one to another because if you do then you end up justifying the USSR crimes because Nazi Germany did this! UPD: A crime should be a crime in all countries. The problem is that some countries use other's crimes as an argument. I said "things should NOT all be dealt with equally" because the judgement should base not on what others think about this but what the moral and the law says.
- arethuza 12y ago
  Can I invoke Poe's Law on your comment as I have no idea whether you are being serious or not. :-)
- Ntrails 12y ago
  The point is, that if something is illegal for one party, it's illegal for all. The point isn't that the USSR crimes are ok because Nazi Germany did it, it's that if it is a crime for the USSR then it must be a crime for Nazi Germany, or the UK, or the US. This, of course, isn't how the world works. But if you believe it should be, it's hard to accept the Russians are the only ones who have crimes to answer for - they just seem to be the only ones being brought to account.
  - go13 12y ago
    I am confused with your reply: > But if you believe it should be - what you mean? >The point is, that if something is illegal for one party, it's illegal for all. - in some countries the law doesn't work and this country's elite don't act basing on the law and justice but use manipulation (like my example with USSR and Nazi Germany) to justify it's actions which results in more bad things. Example USSR-Germany is a parallel to what some Russians are stating: like the current law on blogging is okay because the US initiated similar law too. Bloggers, free media and readers are in fact victims of this manipulation because the US has nothing to do with Russia's internal policy. And still some Russians use this argument as a justification of this law. Please read my previous comment thoroughly.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Also the Ukraine government accidentally shot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 in 2001. Now I do believe that Russia probably supplied a missile system to Ukrainian separatists who then shot down an airliner, however I do not believe that they wanted to shoot down that airliner. It seems much more likely that they were paranoid idiots. If you look at all the different political responses to airliners being downed by military recklessness, the one thing that seems consistent is the complete lack of consistency.
- PerfectDlite 12y ago
  > Also the Ukraine government accidentally shot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 in 2001. It was shot down during joint Russian-Ukrainian trainings, missile was sent from Russian base... but somehow Ukraine got all the blame?
ianstallings 12y ago
I remember those days and the world was outraged. How is that a different attitude? But unlike MH17, the US took the downing of the Iranian airliner right on the chin and didn't try to deflect. They went to court (ICJ), paid the victims, and punished those responsible. It's too bad we don't see that with MH17. I wonder if we will ever see those responsible punished.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  The US did not punish those responsible. No formal apology was ever even issued, no liability was accepted, those responsible were decorated, not punished. The US paid the value of the Jet they shot down and some money per victim but never admitted any guilt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
  - ianstallings 12y ago
    I stand corrected. But I will note that Captain Rogers never commanded another ship after the Vincennes returned to the US in 1989. My main point still stands though. The US acknowledged the mistake and took measures to make sure it didn't happen again. Will we ever see the same from MH17?
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > The US did not punish those responsible. That's because no one person was directly responsible. Even for assholes like CAPT Rogers (who certainly did everything he could to get his ship into a bad situation [1]), no Navy commanding officer wakes up in the morning hoping to get to push the button on a civilian airliner. There was much more that went into Iran Air 655 than a rogue captain [2]. And while there's plenty of room for blame to go around (we could ask the same question of military officers in 1988 as we do of Russia today: Why did you have this advanced weapons system in the hands of people so seemingly untrained and aggressive?), simply lopping off heads because something horrible happened is no more just than mob rule. There's a reason we don't simply fire everyone involved with civil aviation crashes, for example. The "decorations" you refer to were given as a standard element of completing a tour at a duty station. They are given to everybody who completes a tour at a duty station, with the type of decoration being dependent upon rank. You're right that the actions of the U.S. remain unacceptable, but I think we would all be happier if we could get either the separatists and/or Russia's GRU to pay the families of the victims and pay Malaysian Airlines to replace the Boeing. I mean, even the U.S. could be bothered to do that for a nation they had been literally fighting in the waters of the Persian Gulf! Last I checked Russia wasn't in armed conflict with the Netherlands or Malaysia. [1] http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-case-study http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-... (Don't be fooled by USNI here, this piece is damning of CAPT Rogers) [2] http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-422-human-supervisory-control-of-automated-systems-spring-2004/projects/vincennes.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-4...

7952 12y ago

In conversation I have on occasions defended Putin even though I dislike his policies. People seem to give their own countries the benefit of the doubt based on the context at the time, For example, within the UK David Cameron championed laws in the 80s that made it illegal for goverment to publish material that could promote homosexuality. People shrug off resposibility for this by telling you that "it was a different time". Russia has introduced laws that are not dissimilar to widespread outrage. Whilst we are right to campaign against such things you cannot expect a country to modernise instantly overnight or welcome outside interference. People should be reminded that all countries are following a path, and some countries are further along than others. The west does not have a monopoly on justice.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
The gay laws that Putin has brought in seem to be about doing the minimum required to keep the Russian christian right happy while not actually making homosexuality illegal. I find this interesting, especially in light of Putin's many bare-chested photoshoots. I sometimes wonder if those laws might be partly a response to his advisers telling him that he was starting to get a bit of a gay following and that he needed to do something about it before the hardliners started suspecting his manliness. I mean, really. - http://38.media.tumblr.com/880d58b9b6c9abf8ecc9fdbe4da497e0/tumblr_mftwsoPtJr1rmrac7o1_500.jpg http://38.media.tumblr.com/880d58b9b6c9abf8ecc9fdbe4da497e0/...
- Elhana 12y ago
  Since when everyone without tshirt became gay? Really: http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/a/X/2/obama-shirtless-photo.jpg http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/a/X/2/obama-shirtless-...
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Last Wednesday. There was a vote.
- 7952 12y ago
  It is funny how often that photoshoot come up, sometime as an ad hominem attack on him. Lets ignore the personality cult and massive nuclear arsenal to concentrate on his slighty chubby tummy. It is not interesting at all.

imaginenore 12y ago

This! I've gotten into a few debates recently, and like clockwork they use "well country x does it too herp derp". Sorry, but other's criminal behavior doesn't magically justify yours. You are adding to the problem instead of solving it. Same exact thing with religious debates.

Elhana 12y ago

I don't see EU implementing any sanctions against US for Guantanamo or Israel for slaughtering Palestinians. If you punish one country for a crime - be consistent and do it for all of them. Iran can't have peaceful nuclear tech, but Israel can have their Nukes. Kosovo is a "special case" allowed by EU, but other parties can't do the same. Even enthnic cleansing argument doesn't cut it - look at Ukraine, same thing pretty much, but KFOR is good, and DNR/LNR are terrorists.

mpyne 12y ago
Guantanamo is (now, just) a military detainee facility, something which is permitted under international law for states undergoing armed conflict. In the U.S.'s case, they've been in a long running armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the Afghanistan Taliban. The camp could just as well be in Kansas at this point for all that the law is concerned (just where we kept German POWs back in the day), the detainees wouldn't get any substantive additional rights. Likewise, unless you can show that Israel is deliberately targeting Palestinian non-combatants then there's not going to be an international legal basis for sanctions. That certainly wouldn't stop individual countries from applying sanctions if they wish due to their own norms, but that's arguably a double standard as by that logic the world would have to sanction essentially everywhere but western Europe and maybe Canada. Iran can have peaceful nuclear tech, it's explicitly permitted by the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty. If you seriously think this whole thing is just about turning the lights on in Tehran you need to pay more attention to this issue. Even the Western media doesn't refer to DNR/LNR as "terrorists", but as "separatists". They don't even simply call them Russian puppets either, they're always referred to as rebels or separatists of DNR or LNR, and only then possible ties to Russia mentioned. The one time I did see "terrorism" bandied about regarding either DNR or LNR, a Malaysian Airlines Boeing was burning on live TV... Where is "ethnic cleansing" going on in Ukraine?
- Elhana 12y ago
  Torture is not permitted under international law last time I checked, but US doesn't care and neither does EU. And I love the argument that unless you can prove Israel is deliberately targeting Palestinians, they are innocent - that is extremely hard to prove, but very easy for Israel to tell that they "had intelligence". Obviously it is much easier to just blow up a building with a rocket if you've seen Hamas fighter entering it and noone seems to care if there are many civilians inside.