Thread: Алексей Анатольевич Навальный (Blogger Alexei Navalny)

I didn't say it was balanced or nuanced or anything like that. Actually, the only thing I commented on was:

"trying to depict a dictatorship in which anyone who opposes Putin is sent to a labour camp like some kind of flashback to the 19th century"

I never heard of that magazine either.... it's kind of funny how it has that picture and above it the sentence about pit bulls But really, it's quite easy to find such silly magazines in the west as well as the east. Just go to mail.ru and see all of the crazy news about "the west." But I don't see much mainstream news that says that everyone in Russia is going to labor camps.

Originally Posted by bytemare

I didn't say it was balanced or nuanced or anything like that. Actually, the only thing I commented on was:

"trying to depict a dictatorship in which anyone who opposes Putin is sent to a labour camp like some kind of flashback to the 19th century"

I never heard of that magazine either.... it's kind of funny how it has that picture and above it the sentence about pit bulls But really, it's quite easy to find such silly magazines in the west as well as the east. Just go to mail.ru and see all of the crazy news about "the west." But I don't see much mainstream news that says that everyone in Russia is going to labor camps.

You never heard of Spiegel, Newsweek. The Week, Daily Mail or the Sun.
Ok, I am wasting my time here (Вытерто. Л.). What do you think uneducated people who read the headlines and spend five minutes skimming these articles will think?

The Russians voted for this man, and 80% say they approve of him as a president. Russia is no threat to anyone in the EU and certainly not the USA - that's really all we need to know.

These papers are agitating in a way that would make Goebbels proud.

Originally Posted by Hanna

You never heard of Spiegel, Newsweek. The Week, Daily Mail or the Sun.
Ok, I am wasting my time here or you are just being stupid on purpose. What do you think uneducated people who read the headlines and spend five minutes skimming these articles will think?

The Russians voted for this man, and 80% say they approve of him as a president. Russia is no threat to anyone in the EU and certainly not the USA - that's really all we need to know.

These papers are agitating in a way that would make Goebbels proud.

Like I said, I don't see anywhere where it's written about some flashback to the 19th century. As for news from the UK I'm familiar with the BBC.

I don't disagree that he was voted into office and has a high approval rating, and I also don't see any threat from Russia to the EU. And yes, you have some crazy papers there, I agree

Originally Posted by Hanna

You never heard of Spiegel, Newsweek. The Week, Daily Mail or the Sun.
Ok, I am wasting my time here or you are just being stupid on purpose. What do you think uneducated people who read the headlines and spend five minutes skimming these articles will think?

The Russians voted for this man, and 80% say they approve of him as a president. Russia is no threat to anyone in the EU and certainly not the USA - that's really all we need to know.

These papers are agitating in a way that would make Goebbels proud.

(Вытерто. Л.) You read RT. All those sources are offset by the biased Russian (Kremlin-influenced/controlled) media... they have Russia Today (RT) when they want it in English.

What about what the Moscow Times says?:
Yves Rocher Has Rouge on Its Face | Opinion | The Moscow Times

There's popular conspiracy theory "Navalny is a Kremlin project", recent events make it quite plausible. At least it's more plausible than "they threw his brother in prison to make him step back".
Also I think Oleg will get conditional sentence after the appeal.

Originally Posted by Hanna

(Картинки, неуместные на этом форуме, вытерты. Л.)

What!!!
They were front page covers of mainstream magazines!
What was inappropriate about them?

I was accused of simply making up that there is agitation against Russia in Western press.

I posted the magazine covers to show that there is a very clear pattern of villification of Russia and Putin, as demonstrated by these magazine covers.

Then you delete them.

How can I participate here, if I am not allowed to defend myself from accusations, and if mainstream English newspapers are considered inappropriate.

I think you should explain in detail what was wrong with posting those covers. It's certainly not clear to me.
The post was on topic and the pictures were deemed appropriate for European and American magazines, so it's hard to see why they should be censored here.

Originally Posted by Hanna

..I posted the magazine covers to show that there is a very clear pattern of villification of Russia and Putin, ... .

Hanna, you said it yourself.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Hanna, you said it yourself.

And what's wrong with having this opinion, and trying to prove it right when I am accused of making it up?
That's exactly what debating in forums is about, and I did it by posting some pictures that very clearly illustrated the point.

The only explanation I can see, is that you disagree with what I was saying and that you use the moderating priveligies to censor the opinion. That is not ok for me.

Anyone who disagreed could for example have shown picture of Russian villifications and exaggeration regarding Ukraine, i.e. - it seems to be clear that Russian papers are relatively one-sided in their coverage of Ukraine, but is it worse, or less serious than what happens in Western media regarding Russia at the moment? Rather than censor me, why not allow somebody to respond?

I totally sympathise that you might be pissed off with Russia for events in Ukraine because of your own background or politicial views in general. There is no doubt that Russia is pursuing a geopolitical agenda in Ukraine, and that Ukrainians have legitimate historical grievances. But I can't accept that this should mean that I am censored in what I write here.

Originally Posted by Hanna

And what's wrong with having this opinion, and trying to prove it right when I am accused of making it up?
That's exactly what debating in forums is about, and I did it by posting some pictures that very clearly illustrated the point.

The only explanation I can see, is that you disagree with what I was saying and that you use the moderating priveligies to censor the opinion. That is not ok for me.

Anyone who disagreed could for example have shown picture of Russian villifications and exaggeration regarding Ukraine, i.e. - it seems to be clear that Russian papers are relatively one-sided in their coverage of Ukraine, but is it worse, or less serious than what happens in Western media regarding Russia at the moment? Rather than censor me, why not allow somebody to respond?

I totally sympathise that you might be pissed off with Russia for events in Ukraine because of your own background or politicial views in general. There is no doubt that Russia is pursuing a geopolitical agenda in Ukraine, and that Ukrainians have legitimate historical grievances. But I can't accept that this should mean that I am censored in what I write here.

А по теме у тебя есть что сказать?