News from Afar
First thing is this video from the BBC News service, of the use of human shields by IS. The sound is not good, but it’s radio communication which can be blurred.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39475588
The second bit of news, which I got from Nicki and relayed to Jonn, is that there was a bomb explosion on a commuter train between two commuter stations in St. Petersburg. So far the report is 10 people killed, and another explosive was found at another train station. Medvedev is describing it as a terrorist attack.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39481770
It’s easy enough to point fingers, but I won’t speculate about who did it. If it’s Vlad Putin behind it, what purpose is there but to increase support for his efforts in Syria? And considering that a few weeks ago, his loudest critic was shot in the back four times while crossing a bridge near the Kremlin, I’m not sure it makes sense to blame him. At the same time, he sold 50% of the drilling rights for the Rosneft oil platform to Qatar and Swiss-based Glencore a couple of months ago, which doesn’t seem very smart unless he needs money to fund his war in Syria and maybe returning to Central Asia. This is why I won’t speculate, just report what happened. There should be more on the news tonight, and Nicki has an article on it at her blog.
Category: Breaking News
Russian death toll now 11, with 45 injured.
Chechen separatists or Syrian jihadis, kind of a moot point.
Q – which causes the most civilian (aka “innocent”) casualties:
a) bomb ISIS despite the human shields
b) let ISIS continue its current behavior of targeting civilians who don’t fall into line with ISIS’s teachings?
I’d argue “b)” is the worst course of action, but “a)” comes with a lot of negative publicity.
I like the patch on the helo crew’s helmet.
“God will judge our enemies”?
Looks like there has been some patch swapping going on over there.
Militant Amish on the move?
Not likely during planting season.
New-age anti counter revolutionists. Generational anarchist/ revolutionaries. Just young punks looking to steal their “fair share”.
Transsexuals. Twinks w/ twats.
Who is this Nicky?
Nicki Kenyon, USArmy vet, emigrated with her parents from the former USSR. This is her article on the subject.
https://thelibertyzone.us/2017/04/03/because-im-paranoid/
I guess you missed your meds, what ever it is your on. To not point fingers and then say the president of Russia is responsible is down right flabbergasting.
Most times i support your views, but yours stoned to think this was his own doing. check your meds, talk to a counselor and stop posting when its not remotely correct.
Seriously, Fon, quit tripping, will you? Nicki is a refugee from the end of the Soviet Union. If she says Putin is behind this, as he was earlier in his career, I’d listen to her before I’d even take your silly remarks with anything more than laughing and pointing.
But since you think I’m nuts, if Nicki says nothing would surprise her, especially after the polonium poisoning of Litvinenko a couple of years ago.
https://thelibertyzone.us/2017/04/03/because-im-paranoid/
So I don’t give a crap whether you agree with me or not.
English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?
No one accused Putin of anything. What I did say was that I wouldn’t be surprised, you fucking idiot. And considering I was born there, and have been focusing on Russia issues for nearly 10 years as an analyst, I have good cause to be suspicious.
And learn to communicate, dumbshit.
DOUBLE BOOOOOOOMMMMMM !!!!!!
someone just got their asses handed back to them !!!
Watch out there Sgt, you’ll lose this one before you even put on the gloves !!!
Of course you accused Putin, Nicki. What you did was present him as a likely suspect in the bombing by a lack of alternatives to it being a false flag. The accusation might not have been direct, but the inference and innuendo were clear. Unless you’re saying that you “wouldn’t be surprised” is a meaningless phrase, which raises the question of why you would bother writing the post in the first place.
In the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, the most logical culprits in the subway bombing were probably jihadist. Occam’s Razor.
The other thing missing from your argument is that of cui bono. To make a plausible case that Putin might have been responsible, especially with a lack of direct evidence, you would need to at least show he was able to benefit in a tangible form. I’m not seeing it.
Um, no.
Saying, “I wouldn’t be surprised if (X) did it” implies that their being responsible is plausible – nothing more. It takes no position on their likely guilt or innocence.
Accusing (X) outright implies that their being responsible is probable; e.g., that the probability of them being responsible is substantial. That requires a very different statement – something along the lines of , “I think (X) did it.”
Plausible =/= probable.
Um, yes.
And you’re playing semantic games again, Hondo. What you’re apparently saying is Nicki might have written that Putin was seen on the subway lighting the fuse to a crate of dynamite, but she’s not accusing him of anything. She’s simply making an observation, and in order to make an accusation there needs to be a formal legal arrest. Or a specific legal statement that Vlad blew up the train complete with court-ordered depositions from eyewitnesses.
I’ll grant that what Nicki wrote wouldn’t pass a test for libel. Still, the oblique way things were presented put it very close to the edge.
And horsefeathers on the whole “plausible =/= probable” as an argument because it makes a false assumption that there’s a distinct divide between the two. Plausibility and probability have to do with the relative certainty of a set of facts. Making an accusation is not always dependent on having a strong probability. People make accusations based on wild-ass weak plausibility all the time. Whether something is a valid accusation or not is another matter.
You obviously need a vocabulary lesson.
Note the title of the entry.
Note the ACTUAL language, not what you’d like it to be in order to appear right.
“But there is a paranoid part of me that wonders…”
“Given the anti-corruption protests taking place in Russia, and the arrest of opposition leader Alexei Navalnyy and more than 40 others, and Navalnyy’s increasingly resonating anti-corruption message, nothing would surprise me.”
That’s not even close to an accusation, you pedantic dipshit. That’s conjecture at most.
And maybe you should try not to depend on name-calling vitriol such as motherfucker and dipshit to cover for the fact you’re not a very good writer. You might also try looking up the word pedantic, because it doesn’t mean what you apparently think it means. Here’s your logic:
“While it’s true ol’ Vlad was reportedly sighted carrying crates of C4 onto the subway car, and the train blew up 10 minutes later, I wouldn’t speculate on what that means; I’m not accusing him of anything.”
Fuck you and the troika you rode in on, Nicki. Nobody’s afraid of you because you’re a chick and you have a potty mouth.
Maybe you should learn some reading comprehension, fucktard. Your analogies are off. You are obviously incapable of logical thought. You don’t understand what actual analysis is. And basically, you’re arguing something that was never said, all in an effort to prove yourself right somehow.
Among other definitions, “pedantic,” means nitpicky and trying to show off one’s book knowledge, which is exactly what you were trying to do with the legalistic references.
My logic was:
The Russian government has been accused by several journalists and former security agents of orchestrating the 1999 Russian bombings of several apartment buildings. Several of said accusers then died under mysterious circumstances. The explosions likely contributed to the rise of Putin and the start of the Chechen war. I may sound paranoid, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was Russian government involvement in this explosion.
It’s too bad you’re too fucktarded to comprehend all that, and have to fall back on superciliously condemning my language, instead of actually examining the situation logically, cockbait.
In other words, you should eat a bag of rancid dicks, shit stick.
Oooooooo… I’m so intimidated when Nicki says stuff like “fucktard” and “shitstick.” You’d almost think she wants you to think she’s as tough as one of the guys.
How about you go make me a sandwich, Nicki? Put it on Russian rye.
When you get done with that you might try a rewrite of your “My logic” graf because all it does is support what I’ve been saying.
Your refusal to acknowledge reality does not negate its existence, retard.
Now, off with you! Go yank your tiny little pud elsewhere.
What’s up with the blank comment here, Nicki? Did that extensive vocabulary and high IQ you brag about on your Liberty Zone banner fail or what?
Goodness! I’ve never seen anyone so desperate for attention in my life! What’s the matter, little boy? Did your tiny little pecker, shriveled nuts, overblown ego, and inability to reason fail to impress your momma, so you have to go searching for attention – even the negative kind?
Poor guy.
Once again: um, no. And no, I’m not being pedantic. I’m making a point.
From the online Cambridge Dictionary, the American English definitions:
plausible: possibly true; able to be believed
probable: likely to be true or likely to happen
In common language, that which is plausible might possibly be true; that which is probable is more likely than not to be the case. There is a distinct difference between the two.
Sometimes, the precise words used matter. This is one such case.
Taking speculation, clearly identified as such, as a direct accusation is not generally the best course of action. That’s called “jumping to conclusions”.
Feel free to endorse the practice if you like. I’ll pass.
I understand the distinction, Hondo. My point is that plausible and probable are not binary states. They’re merely at different points along a line of certainty. You might also look up “accusation” and its synonyms in Cambridge; there seems to me to be an awful lot of wiggle room there.
And who is jumping to conclusions if not the original “Because I’m Paranoid” blog post?
Wrong. You’re way off. The language used doesn’t even imply such a thing!
And there’s a reason I used this language. Words have meaning.
Given Putin’s prior history, it’s plausible, although I specifically said it sounds conspiratorial.
And I did give a possible reason why Putin would benefit from said event, given the fact that Navalnyy’s message is resonating more and more with the Russian populace, the fact that he has evidence of financial transactions that are sketchy, to say the least, and that Russian authorities arrested a bunch of citizens for demonstrating. It’s a great red herring.
You may agree, or not. That’s up to you. But as I said, words have meaning, and my words in no way ACCUSE anyone.
Everyone’s all like, “Putin this and Putin that,” and I’m over here like “she just quoted Pulp Fiction!!!”
SWOON!!!!
LOL!
This site has been known to promote reading comprehension. See, the trick to effective reading is to comprehend what the author is saying, not interpret it to suit your needs. Big difference. Yuge.
http://www.rif.org/
I just promote bitch slapping a bitch.
Вот именно поэтому тебе не разрeшается играть с другими детьми. Ты постоянно мутишь воду и они вынуждены играть в этой грязи целый день напролет. А тепер, иди умойся…и с Днем Рождения!
Ну пусть там где срут, там же играют, бляди. Мне все равно. Спасибо за поздравление, солнышко!
OK, youse two. I’ll ask the Russian to interpret your posts when she returns from bingo with offspring. I’m hoping it’s sexy as hell.
Its Nicki’s Birthday, I am busy making Селедка под шубой and Шашлык.
Your wife knows the recipes. Enjoy
Mmmmmm. Om nom nom nom
Tell Soviet she’s a lucky chick!