1 edit
Originally posted by chessisvanityf....ck you, cruel s... of a bi..h
what were his "tips" ??
mine were....."kill everything that moves....men...women...and kids"
thats how you win a war.....the united states hasn't won a war since WWII why?....because now they only shoot the guys with guns....stupid.
1 edit
Originally posted by Northern LadWell Kasparov has been fine so far and has opposed Putin pretty strongly. The thing that concerns me is that, like all political oppositions, he has plenty of things he thinks are wrong with the govornment but few practical ideas of what to change to better run the country. That is why I think he wont get voted in, as the old saying goes - if its not broken it doesnt need fixing?
Because they are well substantiated by respected international humanitarian organisations. Some people just don't seem able to face the facts. Maybe you think all the murdered opposition figures are just 'rumours' too.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexHe should have bought a vowel earlier. 😵
It reminds me of that south park episode with wheel of fortune - the clue is "People that annoy you"
N_GGERS
The answer turns out to be naggers, after the more obvious word is said.
BTW, Mig reports that Garry has been released and is safely at home.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexAs it happens, Kasparov has produced numerous tracts on economics and politics, which one may agree or disagree with depending on one's point of view. It's certainly a safe bet that he won't be voted in, because he, like most of the opposition, is not allowed to stand in the election! Of course, he wouldn't win anyway, since the media, and in particular the broadcast media, are almost entirely under Kremlin control.
Well Kasparov has been fine so far and has opposed Putin pretty strongly. The thing that concerns me is that, like all political oppositions, he has plenty of things he thinks are wrong with the govornment but few practical ideas of what to change to better run the country. That is why I think he wont get voted in, as the old saying goes - if its not broken it doesnt need fixing?
I don't know what you mean by it not being broken. If 'it' means democracy, that's well and truly being broken. Kasparov is to an extent, and at least for the time being, protected by being a wellknown personage with quite a high profile in the West (and also wealthy enough to pay for his own body guards). Others are not so lucky. Every week less wellknown opposition figures are being arrested and sometimes beaten up. Possibly most disturbing of all has been Putin's recent use of psychiatric detention and abuse against dissidents, a sinister throwback to a notorious Soviet practice.
1 edit
Originally posted by Northern LadI am convinced that Kasparov faked the "chessboard attack" incident -- which he also blamed on Putin. After that, I cannot regard Kasparov as sincere. In my mind, Kasparov is not primarily a political activist, but rather a politician, who declared his candidacy for the same office which Putin now holds, the Russian Presidency, in the 2008 election. All of his monkeyshines must be regarded as acts of political theater.
I have never been a particular admirer of Kasparov the person, as opposed to Kasparov the chess player, but I think you are being grossly unfair to him in your post. It takes real guts to be a prominent opponent of Putin, seeing that a considerable number of them have already been murdered, almost certainly by Putin's shady security services.
As for the murders attributed to Putin, I do not find such theorizing credible. Putin may be intolerant, but even if ruthless he is not stupid. This is not the forum to argue about the Litvinenko matter, but the theory of an official Russian "hit" is completely unconvincing. It strikes me as extremely odd that so many of Putin's critics end up dying in the most flamboyant, attention-getting manners imaginable, at the worst possible times (e.g., on the eve of an important world political summit).
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsWhat utter contemptible drivel you write. So all the brave opponents of Putin whose lives finished in a hail of bullets (or worse) timed their own murders to discredit him? It is a matter of fact that the British police have compelling evidence that the murder of Litvinenko was indeed an official Russian hit and want to try the main suspect, Lugovoi, in Britain, but of course that won't happen.
I am convinced that Kasparov faked the "chessboard attack" incident -- which he also blamed on Putin. After that, I cannot regard Kasparov as sincere. In my mind, Kasparov is not primarily a political activist, but rather a politician, who declared his candidacy for the same office which Putin now holds, the Russian Presidency, in the 2008 election. A ble, at the worst possible times (e.g., on the eve of an important world political summit).
As I said in an earlier post, I don't particularly like Kasparov myself as a person, but I believe you have to admire his courage in trying to stand up to the ex-KGB thug Putin. He'd be a lot safer (and probably a lot richer) if he'd stuck to his chess. What you say of his political ambitions doesn't make sense. He will not be allowed to stand for the Russian Presidency, nor will any other opposition figure of any note.
Originally posted by Northern LadIs that what I wrote? Or are you the driveler? Why do you write like a third-rate propagandist? Are you an editorialist for The Daily Telegraph, or did you simply watch too many episodes of Danger Man whilst crawling in your nappy?
What utter contemptible drivel you write. So all the brave opponents of Putin whose lives finished in a hail of bullets (or worse) timed their own murders to discredit him?
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsDon't be so pathetic and childish. It is you who has no interest in finding out about the real situation in Russia and act as a propagandist for an increasingly dictatorial and authoritarian regime, exposed as such by independent international human rights organisations and most of the well-informed liberal media. And as a left-of-centre liberal, I find it a joke that I might have anything to do with a newspaper like the Torygraph. Mind you, I shudder to think what your reading matter might be...
Is that what I wrote? Or are you the driveler? Why do you write like a third-rate propagandist? Are you an editorialist for The Daily Telegraph, or did you simply watch too many episodes of Danger Man whilst crawling in your nappy?
1 edit
I suppose what pisses me off most with the likes of Mark Adkins and Tyrannosauruschex is not so much their desire to be apologists for a pretty unsavoury regime as their willingness to comment so outspokenly on such a serious issue without having made any real attempt to acquaint themselves with the facts of the matter. It's not difficult; there's plenty out there on the www and elsewhere. Seek and ye shall find! For those of more open and receptive minds, a reasonable start could be made with:
Amnesty International: http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Europe-and-Central-Asia/Russian-Federation
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/rus-summary-eng (and numerous other AI reports on the subject)
Human Rights Watch: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/11/29/russia17440.htm
International Helsinki Federation of Human Rights: http://www.ihf-hr.org/documents/doc_summary.php?sec_id=3&d_id=4445 (with link to report in MS Word format)
2 edits
Originally posted by Northern LadYour idea of civilized discourse seems to have been dictated by a first form public school teacher. I can almost hear the tiresome drone of your hysterical, nasal voice indulging in shrill ad hominem at every opportunity.
Don't be so pathetic and childish. It is you who has no interest in finding out about the real situation in Russia and act as a propagandist for an increasingly dictatorial and authoritarian regime, exposed as such by independent international human rights organisations and most of the well-informed liberal media. And as a left-of-centre liberal, I foun ...[text shortened]... newspaper like the Torygraph. Mind you, I shudder to think what your reading matter might be...
I would be pleased to respond to material points, but you don't seem to have made any: you have merely indulged in puerile accusations which are so completely devoid of sense as to lack even specious plausibility. This isn't Question Time, and it isn't kindergarten, so please cut the kinderspiel.
Saying that Kasparov is an ambitious and insincere political hack with a predilection for staged media events, for getting into bed with extreme left and right wing organizations whenever it suits his agenda, and for mudslinging against his political opponents, does not in any way constitute an apology for the Putin regime; nor does an observation that if said regime wished to dispose of its political enemies it would scarcely go about it in the manner attributed in the popular press. (As for Litvinenko, he was washed up and discredited even in the Western press -- before his death -- having made a variety of inane and incredible accusations such as his claim that the Russian security service was behind Al Qaeda. Why he should rate a byzantine, Goldfinger-like assasination plot involving nuclear smuggling has never been satisfactorily explained, though there has been no shortage of speculation and rumor. The British police, for their part, seem to be taking cues from British Intelligence -- scarcely a disinterested party and still run by a clique of ultra-conservative Cold Warriors with ties to vested corporate interests who have seen their finances suffer greatly from Putin's nationalistic energy-sector policies.)