9 ms·

> The real question is WHY is Putin cracking down on threat to his power? Sounds like a rhetorical question but I don't guess the answer. Do you mean Putin is

by aragot 12y ago

> The real question is WHY is Putin cracking down on threat to his power? Sounds like a rhetorical question but I don't guess the answer. Do you mean Putin is doing it because of the civilian unrest? > Demonizing Putin is what your government wants you to do to avoid seeing the bigger picture. No-one is demonizing Putin, they're telling facts. The bigger picture is, censorship is bad, and if US defends the freedom of opinion in Russia, it's good because we can turn those arguments back to the US gov.

osipov 12y ago
>>No-one is demonizing Putin, they're telling facts. Really? Much in the same way that the media of 10 years ago convinced the populace that Hussein was involved with 9/11, the media today is propagating the following memes: - Putin hates gays - Putin kills journalists - Putin was responsible for downing of MH17 How many of these memes are supported by facts? When accusing a leader of a nuclear power of these things, shouldn't the accusations be ironclad?
- Yizahi 12y ago
  Putin has started Russia-Ukraine war in February and Russian troops has downed MH17 using Russian AA complex. So he is responsible obviously. Putin regime has killed several journalists. The gay thing is not so clear, he may be gay himself.
  - notjackma 12y ago
    Wow, you must know something the rest of the world doesn't. If you have evidence that Russian troops shot down flight MH-17 then you should present it to the Dutch parliament and the United Nations. Otherwise, like the rest of us, you should wait for investigators to finish their work.
    - dreamweapon 12y ago
      If you have evidence that Russian troops... It was the (trigger-happy) proxy forces, more likely.
    - justincormack 12y ago
      Well I recommend you read the Bellingcat articles https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/mh17/ https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/mh17/
- existencebox 12y ago
  While I think it's very appropriate to question media portrayals, I think you crossed a line in suggesting that russian treatment of gays is "a meme." (If I'm interpreting you too strongly, I apologize, but please just skim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia a bit, especially the section on "national law"; for me at least this leaves very little of the governments stance to question) Similarly, when given such data as ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R... ) it's very hard to suspect there isn't something amiss; this theory guided as well with russia's likely history of using assassinations as a tool prior. (I hate to bring up the Alexander Litvinenko case as that it's probably been beaten to death, but I think it's fair to say it doesn't lend me to trust the Russian govt.) It's all fine and good to call for fact checking, but to neglect to take in the same facts you so loudly call for, you do yourself a great disservice.
  - osipov 12y ago
    Ok, I skimmed LGBT article. Would you be willing to skim the following white paper on the subject? http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d0e55f3197099944345708652/files/RussianLGBTLawWhitePaper.pdf http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d0e55f3197099944345708652/files...
    - unprepare 12y ago
      interesting, an article written by an author who has never written anything else and comes up with not a single social media profile, or really anything other than this article and articles referencing it. perfect shill bait.
      - osipov 12y ago
        Are you serious? This is Brian. I've met him: https://www.youtube.com/user/DiversitySpectrum https://www.youtube.com/user/DiversitySpectrum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTS4ZASCo_0&list=UUsd-fzq2MjpZ9PVKRqirfHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTS4ZASCo_0&list=UUsd-fzq2Mj... Brian is gay btw.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The argument for the war in Iraq was not that Hussein was involved in 9/11. Direct links of the Hussein regime to al-Qaeda was prominent as justification for the war. > The argument was that Hussein had WMD (reasonable assumption given that the US had given him a bunch of chemical weapons and he had used them against his own people), and that intelligence said he was going to attack next. It was a "preemptive" war. This is false. While claims about WMD (many of which were false, and known to the US to be false at the time they were made -- as pointed out in the same UN session where Powell made his famous presentation, several of the specific claims in that presentation had been researched and debunked by UN weapons inspectors prior to that time) were made, there was no claim of specific intelligence of a planned attack, but just the specter that if Hussein acquired WMDs as the Administration claimed he was actively seeking to do and near doing, then he might either use them directly against the US or its allies or transfer them to terrorists who might do so. It was not a preemptive war as that term is generally used, it was an example of a broadening of that concept beyond the traditional notion of imminent threat to a speculative and future threat, which might best be described as "preventive war" (if one felt the need to distinguish it from any other instance of simple aggressive war, which it unmistakably was.) > However, hand waving that everyone in America was so stupid as to believe Hussein was behind 9/11 really undermines your other points. The majority of Americans did believe that [0], and that belief persisted at significant, though reduced, levels several years later [1][2]. I'm not sure how accurately relating facts undermines the grandparent comment's other points. [0] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-po... [1] http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/iraq.poll/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/iraq.poll/index.html [2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polls-truth-sometimes-at-odds/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polls-truth-sometimes-at-odds/
    - krschultz 12y ago
      Honestly I'm just going to delete the comment (even though it was upvoted a bunch). Not worth rehashing something this far off topic on HN. My bad.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  Putin hates gays That's not what people generally say about him. A fairer summation of his attitudes towards LGBTs is that he considers them to be morally defective, and their lives and freedoms to be more or less expendable. Putin was responsible for downing of MH17 To the extent that he invaded a neighboring country via a poorly trained proxy force, and gave them big, expensive toys without sufficient training (or tactical intel) to use them properly, along with high pressure to achieve results; and to which he hasn't showing anything resembling genuine remorse over the incident -- I think you know very well where the responsibility lies.

by aragot 12y ago

osipov 12y ago

>>No-one is demonizing Putin, they're telling facts. Really? Much in the same way that the media of 10 years ago convinced the populace that Hussein was involved with 9/11, the media today is propagating the following memes: - Putin hates gays - Putin kills journalists - Putin was responsible for downing of MH17 How many of these memes are supported by facts? When accusing a leader of a nuclear power of these things, shouldn't the accusations be ironclad?

Yizahi 12y ago
Putin has started Russia-Ukraine war in February and Russian troops has downed MH17 using Russian AA complex. So he is responsible obviously. Putin regime has killed several journalists. The gay thing is not so clear, he may be gay himself.
- notjackma 12y ago
  Wow, you must know something the rest of the world doesn't. If you have evidence that Russian troops shot down flight MH-17 then you should present it to the Dutch parliament and the United Nations. Otherwise, like the rest of us, you should wait for investigators to finish their work.
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    If you have evidence that Russian troops... It was the (trigger-happy) proxy forces, more likely.
  - justincormack 12y ago
    Well I recommend you read the Bellingcat articles https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/mh17/ https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/mh17/
existencebox 12y ago
While I think it's very appropriate to question media portrayals, I think you crossed a line in suggesting that russian treatment of gays is "a meme." (If I'm interpreting you too strongly, I apologize, but please just skim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia a bit, especially the section on "national law"; for me at least this leaves very little of the governments stance to question) Similarly, when given such data as ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R... ) it's very hard to suspect there isn't something amiss; this theory guided as well with russia's likely history of using assassinations as a tool prior. (I hate to bring up the Alexander Litvinenko case as that it's probably been beaten to death, but I think it's fair to say it doesn't lend me to trust the Russian govt.) It's all fine and good to call for fact checking, but to neglect to take in the same facts you so loudly call for, you do yourself a great disservice.
- osipov 12y ago
  Ok, I skimmed LGBT article. Would you be willing to skim the following white paper on the subject? http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d0e55f3197099944345708652/files/RussianLGBTLawWhitePaper.pdf http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d0e55f3197099944345708652/files...
  - unprepare 12y ago
    interesting, an article written by an author who has never written anything else and comes up with not a single social media profile, or really anything other than this article and articles referencing it. perfect shill bait.
    - osipov 12y ago
      Are you serious? This is Brian. I've met him: https://www.youtube.com/user/DiversitySpectrum https://www.youtube.com/user/DiversitySpectrum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTS4ZASCo_0&list=UUsd-fzq2MjpZ9PVKRqirfHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTS4ZASCo_0&list=UUsd-fzq2Mj... Brian is gay btw.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The argument for the war in Iraq was not that Hussein was involved in 9/11. Direct links of the Hussein regime to al-Qaeda was prominent as justification for the war. > The argument was that Hussein had WMD (reasonable assumption given that the US had given him a bunch of chemical weapons and he had used them against his own people), and that intelligence said he was going to attack next. It was a "preemptive" war. This is false. While claims about WMD (many of which were false, and known to the US to be false at the time they were made -- as pointed out in the same UN session where Powell made his famous presentation, several of the specific claims in that presentation had been researched and debunked by UN weapons inspectors prior to that time) were made, there was no claim of specific intelligence of a planned attack, but just the specter that if Hussein acquired WMDs as the Administration claimed he was actively seeking to do and near doing, then he might either use them directly against the US or its allies or transfer them to terrorists who might do so. It was not a preemptive war as that term is generally used, it was an example of a broadening of that concept beyond the traditional notion of imminent threat to a speculative and future threat, which might best be described as "preventive war" (if one felt the need to distinguish it from any other instance of simple aggressive war, which it unmistakably was.) > However, hand waving that everyone in America was so stupid as to believe Hussein was behind 9/11 really undermines your other points. The majority of Americans did believe that [0], and that belief persisted at significant, though reduced, levels several years later [1][2]. I'm not sure how accurately relating facts undermines the grandparent comment's other points. [0] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-po... [1] http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/iraq.poll/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/iraq.poll/index.html [2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polls-truth-sometimes-at-odds/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polls-truth-sometimes-at-odds/
  - krschultz 12y ago
    Honestly I'm just going to delete the comment (even though it was upvoted a bunch). Not worth rehashing something this far off topic on HN. My bad.
dreamweapon 12y ago
Putin hates gays That's not what people generally say about him. A fairer summation of his attitudes towards LGBTs is that he considers them to be morally defective, and their lives and freedoms to be more or less expendable. Putin was responsible for downing of MH17 To the extent that he invaded a neighboring country via a poorly trained proxy force, and gave them big, expensive toys without sufficient training (or tactical intel) to use them properly, along with high pressure to achieve results; and to which he hasn't showing anything resembling genuine remorse over the incident -- I think you know very well where the responsibility lies.