Thread: Алексей Анатольевич Навальный (Blogger Alexei Navalny)

Originally Posted by Doomer

Sounds like: все пи***, а я Д'Артаньян

Снова создаётся впечатление, что вы вместо кошки хотите увидеть в бочке что-то другое.
Это ведь то самое другое (то есть отличное от вашего) мнение Навального, о существовании которого [мнения] вы говорили следующее

Свободное мнение это всегда хорошо
Особенно когда есть разные взгляды на одно и тоже

И странно теперь слышать как вы отзываетесь об этом мнении подобным образом

Originally Posted by Doomer

Sounds like: все пи***, а я Д'Артаньян

Originally Posted by Doomer

I did, on the first page

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ok, seems like we're going in circles.

so this is the only thing from my whole post which is interesting to you?
I don't see how we can have a discussion about analyzing which you calling me upon

Originally Posted by jnllll

И странно теперь слышать как вы отзываетесь об этом мнении подобным образом

это не мнение, мнение это когда никто не идет в правоохранительные органы
а когда идет, то такое мнение называется, в данном конкретном случае, бездоказательное обвинение или клевета

Originally Posted by Doomer

so this is the only thing from my whole post which is interesting to you?

Yes, kind of.

The Cypriot middlemen are definitely not required to purchase the 30 drilling stations from China. At least, not for that price. Navalniy was able to gather some documentation about that hoax and submitted an official request. Why do you think that is not a practical step to fight/drag attention to the corruption? I think that definitely is. Had Navalniy planned to make some political capital out of it? Definitely, yes. Had he made more political capital than he should? Maybe yes, maybe no. But, he had done some practical steps to fight the specific cases of the corruption. That is how our conversation started and in your analysis you have to address that.

Originally Posted by Doomer

I don't see how we can have a discussion about analyzing which you calling me upon

Unfortunately, what you mentioned, cannot qualify for the analysis. You were trying to proof that Navalniy had known in advance there was no corruption in that case (aka the BS, клевета, etc.), and unfortunately you haven't proved that. At least, a simple-minded crocodile like myself can't get it from your analysis. I think you missed the elephant here. The documents were satisfactory to initiate the official investigation. That's all that was required from those documents. Do you personally think the Cyprus middleman was required? Do you know what is an "offshore scheme" and what would be the best place for such artificial offshore company to get its registration? Why to skip this thing in your analysis?
=> http://www.offshore-now.com/offshores.htm

"... где не разглашается информация об учредителях, директорах компании и ее деятельности, а управление может осуществляться по Генеральной Доверенности. Этот механизм используется для налогового планирования, а также для множества других целей. "

=> Оффшор Кипр. Оффшоры и оффшорные компании на Кипре.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The Cypriot middlemen are definitely not required to purchase the 30 drilling stations from China.

says who?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Why do you think that is not a practical step to fight/drag attention to the corruption?

Because I think it is the second target and the first target is to make a public comment about "poor work" done by governmental structures

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You were trying to proof that Navalniy had known in advance there was no corruption in that case

That's incorrect
I'm trying to tell that he KNEW in advance that nothing can be proven in that case thus knew the result of investigation and knew that he will be able to pose himself as "a hero fighting corruption while government don't want to do anything"

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The documents were satisfactory to initiate the official investigation.

That's again, incorrect
The only thing which need to be done to start an investigation is an application. There is no need to provide ANY other documents

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Do you personally think the Cyprus middleman was required?

IDK but my thinking about it will not prove or analyze anything, does it?

Maybe it was the trace of corruption in this case but I'm repeating again, look what he's doing - HE'S TARGET IS NOT A CORRUPTION

Originally Posted by Doomer

says who?

Clusseter Ltd.

Originally Posted by Doomer

1. Because I think it is the second target and the first target is to make a public comment about "poor work" done by governmental structures
2. Maybe it was the trace of corruption in this case but I'm repeating again, look what he's doing - HE'S TARGET IS NOT A CORRUPTION
3. I'm trying to tell that he KNEW in advance that nothing can be proven in that case thus knew the result of investigation and knew that he will be able to pose himself as "a hero fighting corruption while government don't want to do anything"

To be honest, I'm not sure we can find out what his real goals are, that might also be a tough job for his psychoanalyst, and definitely not a source for the factual analysis. Who knows? Perhaps, he initially wanted to impress his girlfriend and then by saying A he was dragged into saying B. From where we stand, the job of finding out his so-called 'real goals' can only be pure speculation.

Originally Posted by Doomer

The only thing which need to be done to start an investigation is an application. There is no need to provide ANY other documents

Really?!!! If I submit a request to investigate why Putin is doing this and that, my application will be rejected right away for the reason of incompleteness, because it has to have a MERIT which has to be factually supported. Hence the enclosed documentation.

Originally Posted by Doomer

IDK but my thinking about it will not prove or analyze anything, does it?

The analysis is first and foremost a cognitive process. Your thinking is a requirement.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Clusseter Ltd.

meaning noone I guess

Originally Posted by Crocodile

To be honest, I'm not sure we can find out what his real goals are

well, I'm just speculating here, same as you
I told you my thoughts and I provided my analysis, if you don't like it that doesn't mean that it's a lie

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Really?!!! If I submit a request to investigate why Putin is doing this and that, my application will be rejected right away for the reason of incompleteness, because it has to have a MERIT which has to be factually supported. Hence the enclosed documentation.

I guess you don't have enough knowledge about how the things work
1. you submit an application which must be accepted
2. if preliminary investigation is required (before opening a case) it supposed to be done
3. this application must be examined and decision should be made about opening a CASE
4. If case is opened then further investigation will be done

So, when Навальный submitted an application (step 1) УБЭП did preliminary investigation (step 2) and didn't find состав преступления thus didn't open the CASE. There were some time spent between step1 and step2
If you submit an application about Putin that spent time between 1 and 2 might be just 30 seconds that's it. Also from my understanding you can't open a criminal case for certain people while they holding certain posts

One more thing, for some incidents one don't even need step1, УБЭП must react just on verbal or written information which is enough to be suspicious
For example if one says that he or she is going to kill somebody it is enough information to move to step2 and no documents required

Originally Posted by Doomer

well, I'm just speculating here, same as you
I told you my thoughts and I provided my analysis, if you don't like it that doesn't mean that it's a lie

That doesn't mean it's a lie, that's correct. If I say something like: "the space amoeba had just safely landed on the asteroid XZ-2011" that does not mean it's a lie. It's just I haven't provided enough evidence to support that. I also agree we're both speculating to some extent, which make our conclusions more probable or less probable in the end. I'm insisting on the fact that Navalniy had significantly drawn attention to the corruption issue and even coined a slogan. Both of us agree (I hope) that the corruption issue is real and is widespread. Ramil posted more on that some time back, something that he witnessed if I remember it correctly. Then, it's up to the government bodies to investigate. Do they want to do it, it's another matter. I suppose, you're right in that Navalniy produced documentation which was not sufficient to build a court case, because otherwise he would just bring the matter to court and demand compensation as a shareholder. But, I would still insist he had done some practical steps as opposed to doing nothing and just crying "Corruption!"

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm insisting on the fact that Navalniy had significantly drawn attention to the corruption issue and even coined a slogan. Both of us agree (I hope) that the corruption issue is real and is widespread.

I agree to this

Originally Posted by Crocodile

But, I would still insist he had done some practical steps as opposed to doing nothing and just crying "Corruption!"

You said before (and I hope you mean it now) that he has done some practical steps to FIGHT corruption
Well, as you said - you didn't provide enough evidence to that

I just only insist that he has done some practical steps to PR himself and also to oppose Russian people against Russian government. I may just sound silly but from my point he's trying to bring chaos and destruction instead of real positive and creative actions

Obviously if all the evidence would be easy to find he would be either in jail or powerful politician (depending on evidence). Right now he's just a clown with dangerous ideas or how some sources say: )
блоггер-атомоход, гигант мысли, отец русской демократии, вождь «хомячков и бандерлогов», профессиональный скандалист, поцреот, юрист, самоопределённый совок, миноритарный акционер, толстенный тролль зажравшихся чиновников и госкорпораций в промышленном масштабе, шило в *опе правящей илиты, автор постов, каментов и мемов, борец с человекоподобными роботами, жертва инквизиции, неисправимый лурко**, Д'Артаньян и просто красавец-мужчина.

This is getting interesting! Obviously the article that I read about Navalny did not explain the full story about him.
And it is really very typical that he is presented as a modern day Russian folk hero, standing up against corruption and dictatorship..
When really, most regular Russians don't even like him! (judging from the comments here...)

Could you list the main irritating things that he done... I mean the things that made you dislike him?

I got:

He was inciting an Arab spring which might lead to civil war.
He is making accusations without proper supporting evidence..
Something that involved a drill and China... ?

What else?

Originally Posted by Hanna

What else?

a liar and an offender maybe?
Фальшивый адвокат Навальный / Новости / Труба — Карельская компьютерная сеть Ситилинк

Oh dear.
Well, are you reading what non-Russian media are writing about him?

" Russian Opposition Leader Alexei Navalny: Uniting Nationalists and the Urban, Educated Middle Class "

" How Alexey Navalny is changing Putin's Russia "

" Russian protest hero Alexei Navalny presses on with anti-corruption efforts against oil firm "


There is a serious gap between what the Russians here are saying about Navalny and how he is presented in Western media.

I choose to believe the Russians at MR.

But this is like a case study for a Media in Politics class... What the h-ck is going on?

And meanwhile, according to RT.com:

" December was an Information War Against Russia "
‎

He's grouping around Russian nazi. Not a good move actually; that reveales he's becomning a politican not a simple civil activist.

Originally Posted by Doomer

a liar and an offender maybe?
Фальшивый адвокат Навальный / Новости / Труба — Карельская компьютерная сеть Ситилинк

maybe...

Хм.. У вас ещё есть сомнения? По-моему, анономному ролику надо доверять беспрекословно.

После выборов Путина Навальному кранты. Думаю все эти выходки на Болотную и Сахарова так не останутся. Достаточно посмотерть как имеют, навример, Удальцова уже сейчас. Думаю надо задуматься, тем кто что-то пишет во всяких твиттерах-шмиттерах.

He's now sentenced to 5 years in prison for corruption!
(but he is an anti-corruption activists). Frankly this does not look very flattering for Russia. Is he locked up because he's a powerful opposition member, or is he a fraud and even corrupt himself?

I haven't followed this, and am not prejudiced, but I can definitely see how this will look in Western Media, and it seems suspect to me!

The main cause of that process was to provide Russian TV a reason to say "you see, he is a corruptioner". Just keep in mind that Russian courts are definitely not a proper tool to identify corruption. With no exception, politics or not. The system of "justice" is 100% corrupt. Occasionally it can provide some adequate sentences for violent criminals (if they didn't bother to pay enough) but that is all.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Is he locked up because he's a powerful opposition member, or is he a fraud and even corrupt himself?

Both things.
In fact, he's a swindler, but it was not proved by the court. I mean, it was not proved properly. So, although he's a little bit roguish, a judge acted in violation of the law.
I guess, if Navalny wanted to be a real activist, he had to pay more attention to his skeletons in the closet. Otherwise your enemies will try to use them against you. Sure thing.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Just keep in mind that Russian courts are definitely not a proper tool to identify corruption.

Ok since this is a language forum: Just have to laugh because this was such a typically [educated] British way of phrasing it. If you'd said "not quite" or "not necessarily" instead of "definitely", it would have been 100% UK British way of totally axing Russian courts for being extremely corrupt. I.e. the art of understatement, lol.
You say it, but you didn't actually say it... That's an aspect of (UK) English that most non-native speakers never learn, even after decades in Britain. Americans don't really use it either.

Originally Posted by Paul G.

Both things.
In fact, he's a swindler, but it was not proved by the court. I mean, it was not proved properly. So, although he's a little bit roguish, a judge acted in violation of the law.
I guess, if Navalny wanted to be a real activist, he had to pay more attention to his skeletons in the closet. Otherwise your enemies will try to use them against you. Sure thing.

Thanks for the input. It's interesting how different the perspective of "Western" media is vs, what Russians say on MR!

Originally Posted by Hanna

Ok since this is a language forum: Just have to laugh because this was such a typically [educated] British way of phrasing it. If you'd said "not quite" or "not necessarily" instead of "definitely", it would have been 100% UK British way of totally axing Russian courts for being extremely corrupt. I.e. the art of understatement, lol.
You say it, but you didn't actually say it... That's an aspect of (UK) English that most non-native speakers never learn, even after decades in Britain. Americans don't really use it either.

Don't you mean that the art of being direct is not quite a top priority in British tradition?