Printable View
"Известия": "Главу чеческой правозащитной организации Спасем поколение Зарему Садулаеву убили 10 августа - меньше, чем через месяц после гибели правозащитницы из Мемориала Натальи Эстремировой". http://www.izvestia.ru/obshestvo/article3136071
Ужасные новости. Что это говорит о правах человека и России?
How many innocents have your "coalition troops" killed? - Ужасные новости.
Перестань держаться высокомерно.
Nobody gets killed because of the 'human rights'.
Defending the 'human rights' in Russia is a very profitable business. They only kill for money here.
It may look like there are politically motivated murders in Russia but in reality all these murders don't bring any benefits to the 'bloody Kremlin'. Quite the opposite - in the eyes of the western press they become even more bloody and talks about human rights violations receive additional momentum.
It is simply not in the interest of the officials (of any level) to kill someone.
The activity of such 'strugglers' are only noted outside Russia. Nobody here takes them seriously, neither people nor the government.
I'm not saying that we don't have problems with the 'human rights' here, but the government positions are very strong and secure due to the abundance of idiots in the population and no human rights activist can harm them in any way no matter they would say, write or show.
But, from the other hand, if such an activist gets suddenly killed then it will be possible to spin the Western media with anti-Russian innuendo.
I ask then WHO GAINS FROM THE CRIME?
There was a big article on Alexander Litvinenko in the Daily Telegraph today. Written by a Russian who keeps calling Litvinenko "Sasha". Rather cheezy article - i only skimmed it.
But do you have a theory on that?
The British press probably haven't had so much fun reporting on Russia for decades. They loved it.... After a month of non-stop Litvinenko I was rather sick of it.
Frankly it seems to me it was too clumsily done to have been done by Russian security services. Whoever the murderer was, he spilled the radioactive material in several places around London (supposedly). Plus obviously the hospital will realise it's not regular food-poisoning when the victim started losing his hair and display symptoms of radiation poisoning. Obviously they wlll then run some tests and find out the real reason. If the "FSB" didn't realise that they would be stupid.. which they probably aren't. Surely if Russian security services wanted to get rid of him they would have done it in a more discreet way?
Litvinenko got involved in some very shady business in London - everything from private securty firms to working with Chechen activists. In addition he was very critical of Putin. But the question is who disliked him enough to want him dead - and used such a strange method?
The general opinion in the UK is that the murderer was a fellow called Lugovoi, acting "on orders from the Kremlin". Britain has requested that he is extradited, but Russia has declined.
Something is wrong in Russia with all these murders. But the way they are described by the Western press often looks completely insane. I remember comments on the murder of Paul Khlebnikow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Klebnikov. Every Western newspaper was sure that Putin is one who is responsible. No one cared that Khlebnikov ideologically sided with Putin against those very rich guys (like Berezovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky) who are used to be presented by the Western press as victims of the Bloody Putin's Regime.
Often I have a feeling that most Western press describing foreign matters don't care about facts, logic and common sense at all. Before having opinion about any situation one should try to find some objective information and to think a little bit. This is originally supposed to be the task of journalist.
Litvinenko was killed by Berezovsky.
I don't think inventing dirty gossip is 'being critical'. I think it's just making money. Big money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Я никогда не был за войны в Ираке, ни в Афганистане.Quote:
Originally Posted by sperk
Hehe... supposedly they were friends... Why do you think he killed him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
But the more I read about these people the more I wonder if any of them had any friends at all. Litvinenko's wife seems like a decent person though. I feel sorry for her.
Berezovsky seems like a real crook! It's defies belief that he was actually given political refugee status in the UK. I think he is a British citizen now....
I'm not alone in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
1. FSB has poisons at its disposal that can kill a man from apparent heart attack and no analysis would discover them. Why resort to exotics like Polonium?
The reports about Anna Politkovskaya and Litvinenko's deaths were released when Putin was meeting with EU leaders in Finland. I don't think the coincidence was accidental. And if was Berezovsky who publicly accused Putin in murder first.
2. Litvinenko worked for Berezovsky but... shall we say... outlived his usefulness. There are many interviews where people who knew both Litvinenko and his latest boss claimed that Litvinenko was dissatisfied with the money Berezovsky was paying him and kept asking for more. Berezovsky is very well known for his unscrupulousness and when Litvinenko started blackmailing him his death become inevitable.
Personally, I don't have doublts about Berezovsky's direct involvement in deaths of Politkovskaya and Litvinenko. He effectively 'fired' his former employees, he secured his 'refugee' status, he embarassed Putin, he undermined Russian relations with the UK and what did Putin gain? Merely a death of a defector in front of public eye? Why?
P.S. Berezovsky doesn't have friends. Only temporary alliies. This murder was very messy and lacked finesse (FSB would have worked better :D ).
P.P.S. And another thing - those associated with Berezovsky have surprisingly high mortality rate for some reason.
Тему "права человека" используют в нашей стране в политической борьбе. А политической борьбы у нас ещё слишком много, так как мы живём во время перемен. Достаточно вспомнить войну в Чечне (которая ещё идёт).Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Miles
Так что, твой вопрос - это не просто вопрос :no: , а участие в нашей внутренней борьбе. Причём, на ИХ стороне.
Thanks for the info Ramil. I didn't know of most of the details that you wrote - but I assume the story got quite a lot of cover in Russia.
The English coverage of the story assumed that Putin was behind it right from the beginning and never questioned the assumption. Possibly exactly what someone had anticipated. Most of the stories were about where the Polonium was found and how Russia was "refusing to cooperate" with the police investigation etc. Plus lots of coverage about the personal lives of the people involved.
I think what you are saying makes sense. I really can't see that the Russian government had much to win by Litvinenko's death either. Quite the opposite. And if they really DID have an issue with him, surely as you say, they would have done a more professional job. I.e. just made him "dissappear" or make it look like a death by natural causes.
The story as it went was almost like a cut from truly bad Hollywood B movie. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone does make a film of it....
One interesting thing was that Litvinenko didn't drink and had converted to Islam.. I wonder what all that was about. Was he a "real" moslem?
-----
PS - I don't know much about Politkovskaya murder at all... But it seems hard to believe that Putin could have considered her a real threat.
But I read her book though, when I first got interested in Russia. Interesting, but it was all VERY subjective; basically her own opinions - about the Russian military and security services. A collection of anecdotes. As support for her stories she used the testimonies of friends and acquantainces, and people who had contacted her. She didn't attempt to appear objective and it was clear that she had a strong agenda against Putin. I am sure she felt strongly about what she wrote about, but the book would have been better if she had tried to be a bit more objective and less emotional.
HOWEVER: Whoever killed her is a despiccable person. I definitely think that somebody like her should be entitled to complain and write critical books and articles if she wants. Some of the stories were very disturbing and ought to be investigated - for example horrible killings of army conscripts by officers. If somebody disagrees they can attack what she writes, not attack her personally.
On the whole I agree that it seems unlikely that the Putin government would have thought that they'd have anything serious to gain by killing her. I too think that somebody else did it.
Berezovsky was (and is) associated with many Chechens in his life. You can also assume that he played major part in the conflict in Chechnya (not on the Federal side). He as associated with Maskhadov and many so called 'field commanders' (including the most infamous Basayev and Raduyev - both are dead by now). His another 'close friend' Zakayev is wanted for terrorism in Russia (he also lives in UK now). Zakayev was practically an emissary of Maskhadov in the West. All of them were (and are) muslims. The fact that Litvinenko was converted to Islam speaks louder than words that he too was closely associated or involved in Berezovsky's Chechenian schemes. An amazing example of friendship considering the fact that Berezovsky is a jew.
We argued about Berezovsky's case in the Politics and our British friends and they kept telling me that the British government has no influence on the courts whatsoever and simply cannot do anything about Berezovsky's asylum. I didn't believe them then and I don't believe this now. This case reeks of politics and I seriously doubt British justce being unbiased.
Since we're talking about this case again, I'd like to ask 'Western people' about something. Here's a youtube clip called 'The last Litvinenko's interview' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaszcXgoM4
Seriously, guys, does he REALLY sound any convincing in this clip, to you?
I haven't heard any reasonable or convincing word in his speech; there is nothing but "someone told someone that xxxx, and this second someone told me, and I can be a witness of it in any court, and feel free to quote me".
Also, he mentions a famous Listyev's case (a very popular journalist Vlad Listyev was murdered in 1995, and the crime remained unsolved). He says that he had all the evidences about this case, and that he knows who are the murders. And still, he does NOT say who they are. He only says, "I know all, and I can be a wintess in a court". At once, he is brave enough to say that Putin murdered someone (a figure like Listyev). So the version that he fears to name Listyev's murders fails.
Also, his statement that no one would touch a famous journalist in Russia without Putin's personal direction is just stupid; and at the same time it's presented as an "evidence" that it was Putin and nobody else.
How can people in the West swallow rubbish like that??
I guess there are three options:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olya
1) What he is saying is more or less the truth
2) He genuinely THINKS that it is true, but it isn't..
3) He's lying on purpose for some reason.
I think it's very hard to say which option it is...
See earlier post by me above, which I edited. I agree with what Ramil says - It's hard to believe that Putin would feel threatened by Politkovskaya. And even if he did, to go as far as to order the murder of a female journalist... My guess is that it wasn't on his orders.
Litvinenko seems to really hate Putin too (same as Politkovskaya). I think there is a good possibility that he is exaggerating or possibly lying. But I don't think it's a given....
I do have the impression that Medvedev and Putin want what's best for the country and aren't necessarily in politics just for the power-trip and the money. I REALLY hope for the sake of Russia, that they are better than what media in Western countries portray them as.
Also, I am more inclined to believe the opinion of intelligent, normal Russians (like Ramil, Olya etc) than what I read in a UK paper.
If you defect you need to lick the boots of your new boss very hard. He defected obviously for money. I don't believe in high moral principles of people for some reason and especially in moral principles of FSB (or KGB) officers.
Politkovskaya is another case. I think she was simply crazy. I don't know what had caused this but I've heard many of her interviews - all I saw was a hysterical woman (really hysterical and not quite coherent sometimes).
Politikovskaya was very passionate about any injustice or what she perceived as such. When she heard about weak people hurt by strong people, it worked like a pushbutton on her, and she immediately went into the "must defend them at all costs" mode. Very often, she didn't actually check the evidence. If someone complained about injustice, she was very likely to just assume that they were telling truth. I don't think she ever lied on purpose — and yet her articles were full of untruthworthy, unverified "facts". She was a very sincere person, but also a very bad journalist, in my opinion, because carefully checked and double checked FACTS are the essence of good journalism.
Because they're programmed from birth. They swallow anything the mass media tells them. Compared to Western, in particular American propoganda, the Soviets were complete amateurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
"ПРАВА ЧЕЛОВЕКА!!!!" - боевой клич американских политиков...
We had a HUGE discussion on this matter here, actualy it's one of the longest thread on the forum (my profile still shows that I 'm most active in this thread :) ):Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtopic.php?t=11983
I was too lazy to reply right away, and now I won't reply much either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
I just can't imagine how this delirium fancies could be "more or less the truth". And what does "more or less" mean?
Perhaps for a Brit or an American, or an aborigine from Indonesian islands the idea of Putin conveying menaces to someone through Irina Hakamada sounds verisimilar; if so, they don't have any idea about Russia, FSB, Putin, and so on. Maybe Putin doesn't have enough special agents for this job? Is he stupid, or completely insane? People who swallow what Litvinenko says don't even know who is Hakamada, most likely.
Also, if what he is saying is more or less the truth, can someone tell me any convincing reason why he doesn't name Listyev's murderers (not even in this interview, but in any other either)? As for me, personally, I wonder who it was. I think we all do. So why?
Also, how can an adult, a former FSB agent seriously say rubbish like "someone told someone, the second someone told me, so I can be a witness"? Doesn't he really understand how naive and stupid it sounds? If he were to be a librarian or postman, probably he wouldn't. But here, excuse me, it's another situation.
Firstly I apologize for commenting on this thread so late in the game. I know some folks in some forums are irked by that and I don't mean to be annoying. Delete me or skip me if you don't want to read me, I don't mean to be a pest.
@ Оля: You have a very good point about the "someone told me/ someone told someone ... " etc. That video is basically as reliable, referring to concreteness of fact, as something out of the Conspiracy Theory set - David Icke, etc. (NB: I'm only referring to both groups being people that stand in front of an audience, saying "This is true, and I have evidence," but never *giving* that evidence - beyond that I'm drawing no comparison.) So as much as I have been prepared by the various medias (in the States, at this late stage, there are like three or four visible families of media (grouped by difference of opinion) that have reported to us something about the Litvinenko case (and each insinuating the guilt-finger at a different source) ), still I myself feel I *can't* trust what is merely somebody's word on the subject.. Even someone as well-informed as a Litvinenko would be.. without any evidence.. In my country I, dare I say we, learned in 2001 that when there is no concrete evidence, anyone can say anything about what happened, and the only argument will be a thin, easily muted voice of protest which, in the case of New York, was lost in the dust of Building 7 and the convoluted poison-pill Mike Moore docs.. And then when that voice is DOUBTED (Bush/Moore poison-pill) or SILENCED (Litvinenko & Politkovskaya, etc.), there's nothing to stop the Powers from writing the history books as they see fit.
But this doesn't only refer to Presidents and governments. In a dust-cloud of confusion and with doubt having been cast on the characters involved, it's plausible that ANY organization involved in the matter could bamboozle the others, just by announcing their version with confidence.. So who's lying? Is Litvinenko lying here, as was said, to align himself toward his new employers? Or is the government motivated to lie in this situation?
I am too confused to utter a good opinion, but there are some tiny little bits of fact that stayed with me, and it's the closest thing to an answer I've got. Tell me if perhaps it is naive of me.
First, the odd, radioactive poisoning method. I don't have as much information on this as I'd like, but it is my understanding from a PBS documentary on the topic that I'd seen, that access to this particular chemical was more likely to be had by Chechnyans than by Russians proper. Don't know how true this is since it was info taken from the media. But it has the ring of truth - I'd only heard about this sort of chemical poisoning twice before, once being the whole Dioxin thing which is pretty recent; the other being a VERY hard to believe story, about the death of Bob Marley, who had cancer of the toe that metastasized throughout his body and killed him - the story went that before a concert, he put his foot into a boot that had been in an outfit rack briefly remanded by CIA operatives, who put a tack with a carcinogenic material into the boot; and logic arranges the rest of the story - - The problem I, everyone I shared that with in fact, had with that story was that the larger government-backed organizations, CIA, FBI, KGB, FSB, etc - that these groups would have 1) Less sloppy ways to get the job done, and 2) Less RISKY ways, with less of a reticent trail to be swept up afterward, and less of a total footprint if all should go awry and the tale should be kept by dead men at the end of the day.
However, something that America has been guilty of in the past, is the poison-pill technique, which to but it bluntly is to let your brother take the fall - arrange your evidence so that it looks more likely to be the guy standing next to you, than to be you. (Ex: "Moon landing faked? Maybe. But moon landing faked even while the US movie theatres are full up with movies that are ABOUT the moon landing being faked?? No way, our government's too smart for that - if there's a movie making fun of it, it never really happened!" (aka Throw a frog in boiling water and he'll jump out; but put him in cold water and cook him slow, and he'll boil to death.) ) From an observor's eye, one COULD make the leap of judgment, that using Polonium is very, very un-Kremlin-like, and in that wise might be the perfect way to get the job done, and leave only false trails behind.
I do know this much, and if anything I said here is worth reading, it's probably only this: As a Westerner, I can say that I never, for one second, believed ANY side of this argument - not Litv., not PBS, not the UK stations, not the US stations, not even the RUS stations. Americans are pretty well used to being lied to now. And I for one hardly believe anything media says anymore.
Оля, on the other hand, is pretty convincing. =)